Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">the registered owner of a design registered under the designs act 2003 (cth) of a ladies' garment (applicants' design)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">respondent commissioned for ladies' garment to be made or imported ready-made from china for importation and wholesale in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether the respondent infringed applicants' design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">meaning of "the informed user"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">relevance of colour in claimed design rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">no substantially similarity in overall impression between respondent's garments and the applicants' design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">application dismissed validity of registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether registration of applicants' design valid as being new and distinctive when compared with the prior art base before priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">informed user would not consider applicants' design to be substantially similar in overall impression to designs published prior to registration priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">applicants' design valid damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether damages for actual sales loss or diminution in value of design should be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether defence under s 75(2) is available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether additional damages under s 75(3) should be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">infringement of design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">rival trader making and selling product in same market as product of registered owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether owner suffered diminution of sales of own product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether owner's reputation for sale of original products affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">quantum of damages to reflect dilution of reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether compensatory damages discretionary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether damages should be reduced by reason of owner's misleading representations in connection with sale of own product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether warranted by proof of copying</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether warranted when rival trader on notice of registration of design. damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">infringement of registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">quantum of damages to reflect dilution of reputation of registered owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether compensatory damages discretionary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether damages should be reduced by reason of owner's misleading representations in connection with sale of own product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether warranted by proof of copying</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 74">whether warranted when rival trader on notice of registration of design.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">election for compensatory damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">assessment of damages on the basis of a royalty inappropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">whether loss of sales by the copyright owner could be inferred merely from the fact of sales of infringing product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">requirement for evidence of lost sales and value of such sales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">purpose of awarding additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 40">assessment of additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">copyright infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">cinematograph work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">pirated dvds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">pornographic films</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">whether ground for refusing copyright protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">discretion to grant remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">conversion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">assessment of damages for conversion generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">statutory prohibitions and restrictions on resale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">impact on assessment of value for conversion damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">classification statutes of states and territories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">onus of proof in relation to illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">failure by magistrate to give adequate consideration to assessment of damages by reference to illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">evidence before magistrate inadequate to raise effect of statutory prohibitions and restrictions in respect of infringing articles  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">conversion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 188">illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">polyaire pty ltd v k-aire pty ltd  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">infringement of a registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">fraudulent imitation of a registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">where alleged infringing design sufficiently different not to be an obvious imitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">whether fraudulent imitation requires that differences between alleged infringing design and registered design be attributable to dishonest disguise of the latter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">whether the application of a fraudulent imitation requires that alleged infringer applied design with knowledge of the existence of the registration and of absence of consent to its use, or with reason to suspect those matters.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1135">microsoft mozart for windows</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1135">the dissonant quartet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">service marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">opposition to registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">whether marks deceptively similar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">whether sufficient recognition in australia of opponent's mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">proprietorship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">whether user in course of trade in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 936">whether sufficient identity between marks and between services.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">whether specialised knowledge or expertise established to admit evidence under s 79 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">infringements of trademarks and copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">adequacy of compensatory damages, damages to reputation and additional damages pursuant to s 115 of the copyright act 1968 (cth)  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">requirements of o 23 of the federal court rules 1979 (cth) and calderbank v calderbank [1975] 3 all er 333</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">whether offer of compromise and rejection letter considered by court in the exercise of its general costs discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">purpose of award of compensatory damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">compensatory damages for lost profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">compensatory damages for damage to reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">whether assessment of loss can be made in the absence of evidence as to the value of reputation or goodwill</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">whether exemplary damages should be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">whether conduct displayed a conscious and contumelious disregard of applicant's rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">contumelious conduct involves an element of malice or spite often manifested in insult or humiliation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">award of exemplary damages not appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">additional damages for the infringement of copyright pursuant to section 115(4) of the copyright act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">appropriate to award additional damages.  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">compensatory damages and additional damages pursuant to s 115 (4) of the copyright act .  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">whether compensatory and exemplary damages should be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">citing from="[2011] FCA 290">award of exemplary damages not appropriate.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 799">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 799">applicant's garment and design clearly unlawfully copied and reproduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 799">whether applicant had created copyright in the design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 799">whether respondents caused or effected the breach of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 799">consideration of damages, damage to reputation and pursuant s.115 of the copyright act 1968 .  copyright act 1968 , ss.115 , 115 (4)  interlego ag v croner trading pty ltd (1992) 39 fcr 348  adidas-salomon at v turner [2003] fca 421 ; (2003) 58 ipr 66</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 709">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 709">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 709">default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 709">assessment of damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">breaches of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">counterfeit garments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">damages for loss of reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">proceeding undefended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">conduct of respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">award for damages made for $61,000</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">injunctions and declarations made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 433">costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">breaches of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">counterfeit garments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">damages for loss of reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">proceeding undefended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">conduct of respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">award for damages made for $90,727</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">injunctions and declarations made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1317">costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether designs act 2003 (cth) applies to extraterritorial conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether alleged infringer's subsequent registration of designs in respect of her own products is relevant to the questions of infringement or validity of the allegedly infringed design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether a design that combines various features, each of which can be found in the prior art base when considered individually but not collectively in any one particular piece of prior art, is capable of being distinctive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether infringement analysis is undertaken by comparing allegedly infringing product with registered design or with a product embodying the registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">authorship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">who is an author of a design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether an independent contractor can be a co-author of a design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">design register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">what constitutes the design register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether a design will be invalid for lack of clarity if the relevant features appear from the registered representations without necessity for unreasonably prolonged or complicated series of deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">substantial similarity as judged objectively by hypothetical "informed user"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether "informed user" is more informed than an average user but less informed than a expert</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether party has duty to check the design register where the product embodying the design carries a registration notice and the substantial similarity of the allegedly infringing, later-designed product permits the inference that the party had access to the product embodying the registered design and did or should have seen the registration notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">lost sales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether infringer's sales may be claimed by design owner on a one-to-one basis in calculating damages   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">judicial notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether court may take judicial notice of design representations displayed on ip australia website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether circulars published by the administrator of vehicle standards constitute legislative instruments of which the court may take judicial notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether substantial similarity of two products permits an inference that designer of later created product had reference to earlier-created work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether court may take judicial notice of matter requiring basic computer literacy   trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.23">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">accessorial liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.24">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">actual knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.25">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether representation of compliance with law may be misleading where it is based upon a commonly shared mistake of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.26">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.27">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">lost sales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.28">citing from="[2008] FCA 1941">whether sales lost by virtue of defendant's misleading conduct greater than sales lost by virtue of defendant's infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">settlement offer and offer of compromise under o 23 of the federal court rules (cth) purportedly made by respondent/cross-claimant to the applicants/cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">applicants/cross-respondents rejected offers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">o 23 r 11(6) not in operation when the purported offer of compromise was rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">no presumptive entitlement to indemnity costs under o 23 of the rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">whether rejection of offers imprudent or unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">whether applicants/cross-respondents advanced groundless contentions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1805">no award of indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">the registered owner of a design registered under the designs act 2003 (cth) of a ladies' garment (applicants' design)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">respondent commissioned for ladies' garment to be made or imported ready-made from china for importation and wholesale in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether the respondent infringed applicants' design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">meaning of "the informed user"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">relevance of colour in claimed design rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">no substantially similarity in overall impression between respondent's garments and the applicants' design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">application dismissed validity of registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether registration of applicants' design valid as being new and distinctive when compared with the prior art base before priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">informed user would not consider applicants' design to be substantially similar in overall impression to designs published prior to registration priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">applicants' design valid damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether damages for actual sales loss or diminution in value of design should be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether defence under s 75(2) is available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1588">whether additional damages under s 75(3) should be awarded</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 344" id="cs0">The G-Star Companies submitted, and I accept, that having found infringement and awarded general damages, the Federal Magistrate was required to have regard to the flagrancy of the infringement: Futuretronics at [17]; Elwood at [38]. He did have regard to flagrancy: see [79] above. Next, the G-Star Companies submitted the Federal Magistrate was required to take into account the conduct of Mr Seo prior to 23 December 2009. That conduct was relevant (s 115(4)(b)(ib) of the Copyright Act ) and was at least to some extent taken into account by the Federal Magistrate: see [79] above. It is true that the Federal Magistrate did not refer to the fact that Mr Seo failed to appeal at the directions hearings listed on 19 August 2009 and 4 November 2009 and, in breach of Court orders, failed to file a defence and failed to provide discovery. These facts were said to support an inference that there was "a very strong possibility that the extent of the infringement [was] underestimated": cf Review Australia Pty Ltd (ACN 122 295 836) v New Cover Group Pty Ltd (ACN 111 991 596) [2008] FCA 1589 ; (2008) 79 IPR 236 at [54] --- [62]; Aristocrat Technologies at [53] and [116] and the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum, Copyright Amendment (Parallel Importation) Act 2003 (Cth), para 4 which introduced s 115(4)(ib) of the Copyright Act . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 290" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 799" id="cs2">In Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 ; (2008) 79 IPR 236 and Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 74 ; (2008) 166 FCR 358 , Kenny and Jessup JJ awarded damages for damage to reputation because in each case, they found that there was some probable diminution in the commercial value of the design in respect to future use and would have an adverse effect upon the applicant's reputation in exclusivity of design. Kenny J awarded damages of $35,000 where the respondent had sold 730 units and Jessup J awarded damages in the sum of $7,500 in respect to the sale of approximately 157 units. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 709" id="cs3">However, her Honour addressed the paucity of evidence of the impact of the infringing products on the reputation of the plaintiff, and the difficulties with assessing the damage to reputation in the following terms: [33] In the present case, I find that it was reasonably foreseeable that infringement of the applicant's copyright would cause a loss of reputation to the applicant in terms of brand-name recognition. However, the applicant adduced no evidence of the damage it allegedly suffered to its reputation by reason of the infringement of its copyright. In previous cases where damage to reputation has been quantified, evidence was usually led to establish (a) the importance of singularity, distinctiveness, quality or some other commercially valuable aspect of reputation to the victim and (b) how, and to what extent, the infringing product or conduct damaged that aspect of the victim's reputation: see Paramount Pictures Corporation v Hasluck (2006) 70 IPR 293 ; [2006] FCA 1431 at [55] ; New Cover[ [6] ] at [44]---[46] and Innovative[ [7] ] at [29]---[31]. [34] What then is the commercially valuable aspect of the applicant's reputation, and how, and to what extent, was this commercially valuable aspect damaged by the conduct of the respondent? At its highest, it was submitted by the applicant that the "iconic" and "exclusive" nature of the Elwood brand was "cheapened" by the production of the infringing products of the respondent. In Urban Culture , O'Dwyer FM awarded $50,000 in additional damages. The same amount was awarded in Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd (2008) 79 IPR 236 ; [2008] FCA 1589 and in Facton Ltd  Anor v Yao [2010] FMCA 433. However, in Facton Ltd  Anor v Chung Lim Sports Cap Pty Ltd and Ors [2010] FMCA 584 , Burchardt FM awarded only $15,000 for additional damages. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 433" id="cs4">The applicants sought an award of additional damages in the sum of $100,000. In their outline of submissions the applicants have referred to cases where additional damages have been awarded in the range of $3million to $50,000. I find an award of $50,000 will serve as a specific deterrent on the respondent as well as a general deterrent to those in their industry who may be tempted. (See Amalgamated Mining Service Pty Ltd v Warman International Ltd [1992] FCA 542 ; (1992) 24 IPR 461 , Bailey v Namol [1994] FCA 1401 ; (1994) 30 IPR 147 , Milpurrurru and Others v Indofurn Pty Ltd and Others (1994) 30 IPR 209 , Microsoft v Goodview (2000) 49 IPR 578 , Microsoft Corporation and Others v PC Club Australia Pty Ltd and Others [2005] FCA 1522 ; (2005) 67 IPR 262 , Fraserside Holdings  Anor v Venus Adult Shops  Ors [2005] FMCA 997 , Foxtel Management Pty Ltd  Anor v Mod Shop Pty Ltd  Ors [2007] FCA 463 ; (2007) 72 IPR 1 , Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v DAP Services (Kempsey) Pty Ltd (in Liquidation)  Ors [2007] FCAFC 40 ; (2007) 71 IPR 437 , Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 , Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd and Anor [2008] FCA 74 , Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd v Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 633) and G-Star Raw Denim KFT  Anor v Urban Culture Pty Ltd  Anor [2009] FMCA 1317).  As the applicants pointed out in their outline of submissions, there is no exact formula to determine the amount of damages for loss of reputation. In previous cases the number of counterfeit garments offered for sale by respondents have ranged from 20 to 28,139 garments: See Crimson SRL  Anor v Claudia Shoes Pty Ltd  Ors (No.7) (2008) ASAL; Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd v Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 633. Awards of damages for loss of reputation have ranged from $7,500 to $35,000: see Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd and Anor [2008] FCA 74 ; Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 ; G-Star Raw Denim KFT  Anor v Urban Culture Pty Ltd  Anor [2009] FMCA 1317. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1317" id="cs5">In respect of the other component in s.115(2) of the Act for compensation for loss of reputation, I looked at similar cases where similar items and numbers were involved. In Review Australia Pty Ltd v The New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 the court ordered $35,000 based upon 700 infringing garments being sold. In this case, I am satisfied that the applicants' products have a well-defined and strong position in the marketplace and that they are at risk of, and on balance, have suffered a loss of reputation by the sale of these counterfeit garments and that the figure of $35,000 is an appropriate award. In determining that amount, I am conscious of lesser amounts being awarded for loss of reputation in the range of $7500 to $10,000, but this case, in my view, is distinguished from them by the following factors, which cumulatively heighten the real prospect of damage to reputation to a degree not so prevalent in the other cases: the second applicant loses sales of the G-Star products as consumers refuse to pay the higher prices for the G-Star products when similar looking counterfeit "G-Star" products are available in the marketplace for cheaper prices; the second applicant loses customers as they no longer purchase the G-Star products as they are no longer considered "exclusive" as cheaper copy product is available in the marketplace; the second applicant's retail customers no longer wish to purchase the G-Star products as counterfeit "G-Star" products are being sold in retail stores within close proximity to their store and at cheaper prices; and the applicants ensure strict quality control for any product sold under or by reference to the "G-Star" marks and the Urban Culture products are not subject to these controls.
(See Crimson SRL  ANOR v Claudia Shoes Pty Ltd and Ors (No.7) (2008) ASAL, Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 , Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd and Anor [2008] FCA 74 , Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd v Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 633)
 Additional Damages
  In respect of the other component in s.115(2) of the Act for compensation for loss of reputation, I looked at similar cases where similar items and numbers were involved. In Review Australia Pty Ltd v The New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 the court ordered $35,000 based upon 700 infringing garments being sold. In this case, I am satisfied that the applicants' products have a well-defined and strong position in the marketplace and that they are at risk of, and on balance, have suffered a loss of reputation by the sale of these counterfeit garments and that the figure of $35,000 is an appropriate award. In determining that amount, I am conscious of lesser amounts being awarded for loss of reputation in the range of $7500 to $10,000, but this case, in my view, is distinguished from them by the following factors, which cumulatively heighten the real prospect of damage to reputation to a degree not so prevalent in the other cases: the second applicant loses sales of the G-Star products as consumers refuse to pay the higher prices for the G-Star products when similar looking counterfeit "G-Star" products are available in the marketplace for cheaper prices; the second applicant loses customers as they no longer purchase the G-Star products as they are no longer considered "exclusive" as cheaper copy product is available in the marketplace; the second applicant's retail customers no longer wish to purchase the G-Star products as counterfeit "G-Star" products are being sold in retail stores within close proximity to their store and at cheaper prices; and the applicants ensure strict quality control for any product sold under or by reference to the "G-Star" marks and the Urban Culture products are not subject to these controls.
(See Crimson SRL  ANOR v Claudia Shoes Pty Ltd and Ors (No.7) (2008) ASAL, Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 , Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd and Anor [2008] FCA 74 , Elwood Clothing Pty Ltd v Cotton On Clothing Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 633)
 Additional Damages
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 633" id="cs6">After all, as they say, success breeds success: see Prior v Sheldon [2000] FCA 438 ; (2000) 48 IPR 301 at [87] . While the precise quantification of the Applicant's lost goodwill is necessarily speculative for the reasons identified above, I would award it an additional sum of $10,000 in this regard. That amount represents the best assessment I can make in the circumstances: Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 ; (2008) 79 IPR 236 at [46] . Section 115(4) of the Act --- Additional Damages
  In relation to the "lost profits method", two facts or matters were relied upon by the Applicant: (1) the Respondent sold 31,333 garments and (2) the Applicant sold the NewDeal garment at a wholesale profit of $12.88 per unit. The Applicant had identified a retail profit but conceded, as it had to, that the very great majority of its sales were wholesale. The Applicant accepted that Courts have expressed concerns about the appropriateness of this method: Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 ; (2008) 79 IPR 236 , [42]-[43]. However it submitted that such a method was appropriate in this case because the Applicant could show that it lost significant sales as a result of the Respondent's garments being sold in the marketplace. The Respondent disagreed. It submitted that the Applicant's approach should be disregarded or, if the Court was to award damages on this basis, either the amount awarded should be nominal because the Applicant had failed to satisfactorily quantify its loss ( Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 40 ; (2007) 157 FCR 564 at [2] , and [38]-[39]) or at least heavily discounted.  In the present case, I find that it was reasonably foreseeable that infringement of the Applicant's copyright would cause a loss of reputation to the Applicant in terms of brand-name recognition. However, the Applicant adduced no evidence of the damage it allegedly suffered to its reputation by reason of the infringement of its copyright. In previous cases where damage to reputation has been quantified, evidence was usually led to establish (a) the importance of singularity, distinctiveness, quality or some other commercially valuable aspect of reputation to the victim and (b) how, and to what extent, the infringing product or conduct damaged that aspect of the victim's reputation: see Paramount Pictures Corporation v Hasluck [2006] FCA 1431 ; (2006) 70 IPR 293 at [55] ; Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 ; (2008) 79 IPR 236 , [44]-[46] and Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 74 ; (2008) 166 FCR 358 , [29]-[31]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1941" id="cs7">How then does one assess the overall impression of a design in infringement proceedings? As noted earlier, until recently there has been little Australian judicial consideration of the 2003 Designs Act. The principal cases to date include Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1588 ; Review Australia Pty Ltd v Innovative Lifestyle Investments Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 74 ; (2008) 166 FCR 358 ; Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 and World of Technologies (Aust) Pty Ltd v Tempo (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 114 ; (2007) 71 IPR 307.  The "informed user" concept in the 2003 Designs Act has been the subject of recent judicial consideration in Australia: Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1588 at [19] - [27]; Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589. It is a concept the ALRC borrowed from European Community Design law, now codified in Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 and in the Registered Design Act 1949 (UK): see ALRC Report, para 5.17-5.21 and 6.12-6.13; Proctor  Gamble Company v Reckitt Benckiser (UK) Ltd (2007) 73 IPR 605 at [32] and J Choo (Jersey) Ltd v Towerstone Ltd [2008] FSR 19 at [7].  I say "at first glance," however, because in the Review cases, Kenny J added an important qualification to Jessup J's holding in Innovative . Her Honour noted the long-standing common law presumption, codified in s 21(1)(b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), that statutes are to be read as being confined to their operation within territorial limits: Review 2 Pty Ltd v Redberry Enterprise Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1588 at [77] ; Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 at [48] . Although the Respondents in this case did not raise any extraterritoriality issue, I consider it appropriate to do so because the parties did not have the benefit of Kenny J's judgment at the time of trial and because the issue relates to the Court's jurisdiction - that is, it goes to a matter in respect of which the Court is required to satisfy itself regardless of the parties' submissions or lack thereof. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1805" id="cs8">1.3 This was not a claim that was bound to fail, or even, more likely than not to fail. 1.4 The result turned upon the judge's impression, which was in favour of the applicants' case up to the point of considering the prior art. 1.5 There was a close similarity between the garment in question in this proceeding and the dresses in Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589. The fact that there was no infringement in this proceeding but infringements in the New Cover proceeding, and taking into account the state of discovery, the limited prior art relied upon at the time of the offer and Redberry's prior instances of copying, it was not unreasonable for the applicants to have considered that Redberry's garments were infringing. 1.6 To have accepted Redberry's offer of compromise at that time would have required the applicants to accept, in effect, that a person in China had independently conceived a design that was startling similar to the applicants' design and at the same time when another retailer --- New Cover Group Pty Ltd --- was also selling a dress remarkably similar to the applicants' design.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1588" id="cs9">69 The applicants also sought general damages on an alternative basis. As I stated in Review Australia Pty Ltd v New Cover Group Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1589 (" New Cover "), in a case of design infringement, general damages may be awarded on the basis of the diminution of the value of the Review Design as a chose in action. The manner in which such damages are to be assessed is discussed in New Cover and applies in this case as well. As in New Cover , there is no satisfactory evidence as to the sales history of the Review Design, but there is some evidence as to the value to Review of its designs and the image they created. Adopting the approach as outlined in New Cover , if it had been necessary to do so, I would have assessed the effect of infringement at the time it occurred (and had it been made out) on the potential market for the Review Dress at $3,500. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 21 Office etc. means office etc. of the Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l2">DESIGNS ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l3">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 4 Application of the Act</title>
<title id="l4">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 5 Definitions</title>
<title id="l5">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 7 Definition of visual feature</title>
<title id="l6">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 8 References in this Act to a design</title>
<title id="l7">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 10 Exclusive rights of registered owners</title>
<title id="l8">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 15 Registrable designs</title>
<title id="l9">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 16 Designs that are identical or substantially similar in overall impression</title>
<title id="l10">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 19 Factors to be considered in assessing substantial similarity in overall impression</title>
<title id="l11">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 21 Person may file a design application</title>
<title id="l12">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 24 Design applications that meet the minimum filing requirements</title>
<title id="l13">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 71 Infringement of design</title>
<title id="l14">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 75 Remedies for infringement</title>
<title id="l15">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 93 Revocation of registration in other circumstances</title>
<title id="l16">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l17">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 97 The tendency rule</title>
<title id="l18">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">contract of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">right to direct not to work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">incorporation of disciplinary procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">"suspension"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">implied duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">good faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">relationship with award and statutory rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">personal service industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">unfair contracts for performance of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">contract or arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">excludes award and statutory obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">"remuneration cap" excludes payment under award and liability under statute trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">employment not in "trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">not unconscionable crown privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">operation of s 47 of the interpretation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">right to suspend or remove</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">specific overrides general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 159">public employment distinguished from officers with statutory powers or discretions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 35">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 35">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 35">contract for services discharged by inferred agreement was 'terminated'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">freedom of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">prejudicial alteration of position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">prohibited reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">entitlement to benefit of industrial instruments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether prejudicial alteration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether ascertainable class of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">certified agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">obligation to consult</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether breach of certified agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">validity of certified agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether manifestly excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">blackadder v ramsey butchering services pty ltd  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">reinstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">employer ordered to reinstate dismissed employee to the position in which he was employed prior to being dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">employer reinstated employee subject to conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">employee paid wage but not provided with work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">whether reinstatement order made under s 170ch of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) requires employer to provide employee with work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">whether employee was reinstated to the position in which he was employed prior to being dismissed.  federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 22">whether federal court may make an order for enforcement of reinstatement order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 318">please note that the proceeding number on the page was incorrectly shown as qg 80 of 2000, and should be amended to read qg 80 of 1998.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">patrick stevedores operations no 2 pty ltd  ors v  maritime union of australia  ors  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">power under s 298u of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) and s 23 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) to grant interlocutory injunctions to restrict purported termination of labour supply agreements, termination of employment of employees, obtaining stevedoring services, engaging in conduct having the effect of termination employment of employees, and engaging in conduct having the effect of the divestment of assets or dealing with assets otherwise than in the ordinary course of business.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">mareva injunctions and other interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether within jurisdiction of the federal court of australia to grant injunction with the effect of fettering discretion of administrators appointed under pt 5.3a of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether effect of such injunction requires company to trade while insolvent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether injunction necessary to prevent frustration of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether confined to maintaining status quo at the time of making application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether available to protect the subject matter of litigation conferring greater rights than when application made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether appropriate on balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">effect on third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">appointment of administrators under pt 5.3a of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">powers and duties in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">personal liability in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">jurisdiction of court fettering discretion of administrators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">jurisdiction of court to make orders compelling administrators to retain employees and to trade while insolvent contrary to responsibilities under the corporations law.  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">stevedoring industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.23">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether restructuring of companies so as to remove assets from employer company with the effect of dismissing, injuring or altering the position of employees by reason of their membership of a union contravenes pt xa of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.24">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">nature of interlocutory injunctive relief available under s 298u of that act. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.25">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">joint or several tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.26">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.27">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory injunction an appropriate remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.28">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory mandatory injunction an appropriate remedy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">appeals from decisions of federal magistrates court summarily dismissing proceedings on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">meaning of provisions in pt 16 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">freedom of association.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWIRComm 1014" id="cs0">43 Ms Winklemann referred to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court ( Moore J dissenting) in Ramsay Butchering Services Pty Limited v Blackadder in contending there was no obligation on Principal to provide work to Ms Standen. If reliance is placed on the case, it may be noted that, in unanimously allowing an appeal against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court, the High Court made various comments which would not assist the case argued by Principal: Blackadder v Ramsey Butchering Services Pty Ltd [2005] HCA 22 ; 221 CLR 539. For example, Kirby J said at [33] an order for reinstatement of an employee is meant to be "real and practical, not illusory and theoretical". Here, the practical reality was that Ms Standen had no work or wages - no real job at all - from 8 October 2008, and no practical prospect of being allowed to return to work with Principal given her injury status. Similarly, in Unsworth v Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Limited [2008] FCA 1224 at [29] Gyles J cited the decision of the High Court in Blackadder, as well as Squires v Flight Stewards Assn of Australia (1982) 2 IR 155 at 164 and Downe v Sydney West Area Health Service (No 2) [2008] NSWSC 159 at [410] - [431], in observing: "There is a respectable argument that an employee cannot be indefinitely denied work to do if work of an appropriate kind is available".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1470" id="cs1">71 The same may be said of each of the other decisions discussed above. Only one decision requires further comment, being Tristar [2008] FCA 1224. Tristar too concerned one provision only, s 793(1)(i). It also, as Gyles J said, involved an unusual claim of discrimination by reason of not being terminated. The outcome in Tristar appears to have turned on its own unusual facts. Insofar as Gyles J expressed general views about the operation of the statutory provisions, the observations in Community and Public Sector Union (2006) 157 IR 470 ; [2006] FCAFC 176 at [43] --- [46] about McIlwain (2006) 154 IR 111 ; [2006] FCA 828 and National Union of Workers v Qenos Pty Ltd (2001) 108 FCR 90 ; [2001] FCA 178 are arguably to the contrary. Finally, the decision in Tristar is subject to an unresolved appeal.  62 Gyles J, in Unsworth v Tristar Steering and Suspension Australia Limited [2008] FCA 1224 , had to deal with the application of s 793(1)(i) in what his Honour described as an unusual situation of a claim of discrimination by employees who had not been dismissed from employment. At [20] Gyles J said that:
 It will be observed that object (b) of s 778 picks up the words "discriminated against" or "victimised" that have traditionally been used in this field. In my opinion, as the provisions now stand, taken in context, s 792 can have no sensible operation unless it involves discrimination against, or victimisation of, an employee on some basis connected with union membership, no matter how broadly. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">collector of customs v agfa-gevaert limited    administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">administrative appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">distinction between questions of fact and questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether ordinary or non-legal technical meaning of word is question of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether effect or construction of term whose meaning is established is question of law.  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">revenue statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">composite phrase which taken as a whole has no trade meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether error of law to construe composite phrase by giving trade meaning to some words in phrase and ordinary meaning to remaining words in phrase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">relationship between trade meaning and ordinary meaning.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">tariff concession order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">whether commercial usage or ordinary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">composite phrase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">one element with commercial meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">construction of different parts of the one phrase according to usage and ordinary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">evidence of commercial usage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">whether argument about ordinary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">range of ordinary meanings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">photographic paper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">used in "silver dye bleach reversal process"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1336">"having image dyes incorporated in emulsion layers".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 282">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 282">admissibility of statement in document pursuant to either s. 7b(1) of the evidence act 1905 (cth) and s. 1305 of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 282">document generated by outsider to the business and found to be a business record of outsider's business.  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 282">s. 1305  evidence act 1905 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 282">ss. 7b and 7h  federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 282">order 18 rule 3  albrighton v royal prince alfred hospital (1980) 2 nswlr 542  atra v farmers and graziers co-op co. ltd. (1986) 5 nswlr 281</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">company shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">recoupment tax legislation vendors recoupment tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation (unpai company tax) assessment act 1982 sub-s.5(4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">"unreasonable that the primary taxable amount should be taken to exist"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">nature and width of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">factors personal to taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">age</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">condition of life</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">commercial sophistication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">reliance upon professional advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">object in entering share sale transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">ignorance of fraudulent aspects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">extent of benefit derived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">appeals to aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles regulating functions on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">exercise of dispensing discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">jurisdiction of court on appeal from aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles governing exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restraint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">company operating modest family farm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">elderly parents and son shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restructuring of business to divide between father and son</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">disposal of stock to father and son trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.27">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">deemed profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.28">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">sale of shares in company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.29">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">professional advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.30">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">outstanding liability for ordinary company tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.31">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">tax imposed after sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.32">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">shareholders innocent of fraudulent purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.33">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">share sale incidental to restructuring.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.34">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.35">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.36">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">exercise of administrative discretions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.37">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principle regulating review and exercise of discretion by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.38">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">approach to administrative policies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.39">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation rulings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.40">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority under sub-s.5(4) of tucta act 1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.41">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation ruling it2063</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.42">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">appeal to federal court on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.43">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">jurisdiction of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.44">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles governing exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.45">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restraint.  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.46">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">federal court of australia original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.47">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">appeals under s.44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.48">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.49">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">principles governing exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.50">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">restraint.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.51">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.52">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxing statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.53">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.54">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">broad discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.55">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">by reference to what commissioner considers "unreasonable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.56">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">limiting criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.57">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">scope and purpose of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.58">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">dispensing authority as element of statutory purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.59">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">limited scope for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.60">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">taxation (unpaid company tax) assessment act 1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.61">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">sub-s.5(4).  words, phrases and maxims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.62">cited from="[1989] FCA 413">"considers it unreasonable" "unreasonable".  stone's human law and human justice 1965 at 301  income tax assessment act 1936 s,260  taxation (unpaid company tax) assessment act 1982 s.3(1) , s. 8 , sub-s.5(4)  taxation boards of review (transfer of jurisdiction) act 1986  crimes (taxation offences) act 1980  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 s.44 , sub-s.43(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">application to strike out statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">allegation that no reasonable cause of action disclosed therein</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">limitation of actions.  jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">pendent jurisdiction of the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">discretionary nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">jurisdiction once attracted persists to resolve a pendent claim if primary claim fails for temporal limitation.  trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">observations as to the proper approach to construction of s.82 of the trade practices act with respect to causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1987] FCA 230">observations as to the appropriateness of resort to general law analogies as an aid to construction of the causal requirement of s.82.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">whether question of law  customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">entitlement to rebate in carrying live-stock fertilizer and grain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">whether carriage of live-stock an operation connected with rearing of live-stock</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">whether carriage of fertilizer an operation connected with cultivation of soil</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 312">whether carriage of grain an operation connected with gathering-in of crops</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">decision that goods are prohibited imports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">submission that decision not reviewable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">facts not in dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">questions of law and questions of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">roles of court and decision maker.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">s.5.  customs act 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">secns. 50, 203 and 229(1)(b).  customs tariff 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">s.14 and schedule 1 (part i, interpretative rules, and part ii, chapter 87).  customs tariff amendment act 1980</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">schedule 8, item 283.  customs tariff amendment act 1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">schedule 6, item 9.  customs (import licensing) regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">regs. 7 and 17(1).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs officer determining goods within particular tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">whether determination of question of law or fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">jurisdiction of federal court of australia to review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs act 1901 (cth), s 50(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs tariff act 1973 (cth), ch 87, sched. 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s 5(1)(f).  customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">officer determining goods within particular tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">determination erroneous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.21">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">whether an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.22">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">whether reviewable by federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.23">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs act 1901 (cth), s 50(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.24">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs tariff act 1973 (cth), ch. 87, sched 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.25">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s 5(1)(f).  customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.26">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.27">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">particular items</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.28">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">"vehicles" without engines and gearboxes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.29">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">whether passenger motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.30">cited from="[1983] FCA 190">customs tariff 1973 (cth), ch. 87, sched 1. a customs officer determined that two "vehicles" imported without engines or gearboxes were motor cars within tariff item 87.02.119 of the customs tariff act 1973 (cth). pursuant to the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s 5 a single judge of the federal court of australia quashed that determination. on appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">consent orders including undertakings about future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">undertaking extending beyond court's power to restrain conduct by injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 45a, 80 , 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 22 , 23 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">importation of vehicles having the characteristics of tractors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether vehicles "tractors" as defined in tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">if so, whether they were derivatives of "agricultural tractors" as defined therein</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether it was open to the tribunal as the tribunal of fact to conclude that the vehicles were "lifting machinery" within the tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">consideration of the question of whether the vehicles were imported in an incomplete or unfinished state and, if so, had the essential character of lifting machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">observations on what amounts to a question of law and the circumstances in which the court will interfere with the decision of an administrative tribunal whose decisions on questions of fact are final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs tariff 1966, paragraphs 84.23.311 and 84.22.521 of part ii of first schedule, interpretative rule 2(1)(a) and notes 2 and 7 to chapter 87 of part ii of first schedule.  customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">duty on imported vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether lifting machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether incomplete or unfinished state having essential characteristics of lifting machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether derivatives of agricultural tractors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">decisions of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">whether questions of law raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">"derivative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">"essential character"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">"hauling"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">customs tariff 1966. first schedule, pt i interpretative r. 2 (1) (a); pt ii pars. 84.23.311, 84.22.521, 87.01.31; pt ii ch. 87 notes 2, 7</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), s. 44. the applicant appealed to the administrative appeals tribunal against the assessment by the respondent of the customs duty payable in respect of four vehicles it had imported. the tribunal decided that the vehicles were properly classified under par. 84.22.521 of the customs tariff 1966. item 84.22 referred to "lifting, handling, loading or unloading machinery", par. 84.22.52 referred to "other machinery . . ." and par. 84.22.521 referred to machinery within par. 84.22.52 which did not have a working weight of more than fifty tonnes. the tribunal in reaching those decisions applied interpretative r. 2 (1) (a) of the customs tariff to conclude that the vehicles were imported in an incomplete or unfinished state but had the essential character of goods described in par. 84.22.521. the applicant contended that the vehicles came within par. 87.01.31 of the tariff which referred to: "agricultural wheeled tractors and other wheeled tractors that are derivatives of agricultural tractors."  on appeal.  held: per curiam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">(1) the appeal being limited to a question of law pursuant to s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 , the applicant had to demonstrate that the evidence was such that the vehicles must fall within the words of the paragraph it relied on. currie v. commissioners of inland revenue, (1921) 2 kb 332 ; lombardo v. federal commissioner of taxation [1979] fca 66 ; (1979), 40 flr 208 , referred to.  per fisher j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">quaere whether any decision of an administrative body such as the tribunal can be said to involve a question of law because it is based on insufficient evidence.  federal commissioner of taxation v. miller [1946] hca 23 ; (1946), 73 clr 93 , referred to.  (2) the vehicles did not fall within par. 87.01.31 of the tariff because:  per smithers j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.23">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">they were not constructed essentially for hauling or pushing within the meaning given to "tractor" by note 2 to ch. 87. the vehicles were a derivative of an agricultural tractor within the meaning of par. 87.01.31.  per fisher and sheppard jj.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.24">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">the vehicles had not been developed from an actual existing agricultural tractor, it being insufficient that the vehicles were modelled upon something which in former times was an agricultural tractor or part thereof.  (3) per fisher and sheppard jj., smithers j. dissenting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.25">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">on the evidence taking into account the intrinsic nature of the vehicles themselves at the date of importation, it was open to the tribunal to conclude that the vehicles were imported in an incomplete state and had the essential character of lifting machinery.  per smithers j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.26">cited from="[1980] FCA 96">the machines were incomplete in so significant a respect that within the meaning of interpretative r. 2 (1) (a) they could not be said to have the essential character of lifting machinery and the tribunal's decision to the contrary involved an error of law. (4) appeal dismissed.  hearing  sydney, 1980, february 21-22; august 22. 22:8:1980</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">local government (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">rating</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">rural land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">land used for the business of grazing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">land used for agistment of cattle and horses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">case stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">mixed question of law and fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 16">local government act, 1919 (n.s.w.), s. 118 (1) "rural land", land valuation court act, 1921 (n.s.w.), s. 17.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">application for costs on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">offers of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">where applicant offered to pay his own costs if minister agreed to consent orders remitting the decision to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">where offer was rejected and applicant ultimately successful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">where proposed orders did not contain details of the alleged error of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">whether offer was complete</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">whether offer was truly an offer of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1137">whether offers of compromise capable of being made in public law proceedings.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1137" id="cs0">It is thus clear that in a case such as this there is no room for a private compromise. There can only be a Court order and that order can only be made if the conditions set by French J are complied with. So much was affirmed by Young J in CEO of Customs v Biocontrol Ltd [2006] FCA 107 ; (2006) 150 FCR 64 at [16] :
"The proposed consent orders relate to a matter of public law, and would involve setting aside a carefully reasoned decision of the Tribunal. It would be inappropriate for me to accede to the orders that have been sought simply because they are consent orders without satisfying myself that the Tribunal in fact erred in law and the correct tariff classification of the goods is under subheading 3808.10.90. Further if I were to be so satisfied, I also consider that I should identify the error of law by the Tribunal which founds the orders I am asked to make.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 163 Refunds etc. of duty</title>
<title id="l4">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 167 Payments under protest</title>
<title id="l5">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 273 Determinations</title>
<title id="l6">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 273GA Review of decisions</title>
<title id="l7">CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l8">CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT 1995 - SECT 16 Calculation of duty</title>
<title id="l9">CUSTOMS REGULATIONS 1926 </title>
<title id="l10">CUSTOMS REGULATIONS 1926 - REG 126 Circumstances under which refunds, rebates and remissions are made</title>
<title id="l11">CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l12">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l13">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 82 Actions for damages.</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 437">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 437">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 437">special resolution to wind up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 437">whether such resolution may be passed by sole shareholder signing minute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 437">whether fact that no directors in office and no one willing to be appointed justifies winding up on just and equitable ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 437">basis on which provisional liquidator will be appointed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">advertisements defective in stating company's name incorrectly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">whether injustice caused thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">whether facts disclosed that company insolvent  contract of loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">meaning of word "investment" in context of loan to company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">whether a term is to be implied in the contract of loan that the loan should not be repayable unless and until the company be wound up, through no fault of the lender  oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">whether alleged breach of contract to advance further funds to company is oppressive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1998] WASC 38">whether application to wind up company constitutes oppressive conduct</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 461 General grounds on which company may be wound up by Court</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 477 Powers of liquidator</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 912">discontinuance of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 912">whether discontinuance of proceedings will lead to an incurable injustice or disadvantage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 912">whether conditions should be imposed before leave granted to plaintiff to discontinue proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">officers and employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">duties and powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">duty of care and diligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">consent orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">responsibilities of chairman discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">s 1317e requirements for specificity discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">s 1317f discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">period of disqualification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 836">factors to consider for non-executive chairman.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 795">applications pursuant to part 31 rule 7 for concurrent hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 795">civil penalty proceedings applying the rules of evidence and procedure for civil matters (s. 1317l)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 795">other proceedings in which a contravention of s 184 "criminal offence" is alleged with "criminal intent"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1632">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1632">application for transfer of federal court proceedings to the supreme court of new south wales pursuant to s 5(4) of the jurisdiction of courts (cross-vesting) act 1987 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1632">proceedings related to other proceedings residing in the supreme court both conditionally and unconditionally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1632">consideration of inherent potential advantages in transferring proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1632">whether appropriate and in the interests of justice that proceedings be transferred to the supreme court</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1632" id="cs0">32 The requirement of s 5(4) of the Cross-vesting Act is the existence of 'related proceedings' between the court in which the application is made and the court to which the matters are being sought to be transferred. The authorities on this issue establish that there do not need to be identical parties to the two, or more, proceedings before they can be considered to be 'related' for the purposes of enlivening the cross-vesting power of the court. It is enough that the proceedings have one common party and involves common issues and common questions: Watson v CGU Insurance Limited [2006] FCA 1630 ; AMP Financial Planning Pty Ltd v Green [2004] NSWSC 1099 ; (2004) 51 ACSR 693. Related Proceedings - Identical Parties, Common Facts and Common Issues </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1104" id="cs1">3 Sackville J was persuaded that it would be in the interests of justice for the proceeding to be transferred to the Supreme Court of New South Wales and on 28 November 2006 made orders to that effect ( Watson v CGU Insurance Limited [2006] FCA 1630). The transferred proceeding became Supreme Court of New South Wales proceedings No 50198 of 2006 ("the transferred proceedings"). Numerous interlocutory steps have been taken in the transferred proceedings but there has as yet been no final hearing.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1317H Compensation orders--corporation/scheme civil penalty provisions</title>
<title id="l2">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l3">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 - SECT 5 Transfer of proceedings</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>