Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant exclusive dealer of mobile phone services for respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">respondent claims that commissions paid to applicant exceeded "cap" as specified in written dealership agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">notice issued by respondent requiring repayment of alleged overpayment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant claims respondent gave oral assurance in pre-contractual negotiations that "cap" would not be enforced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant further claims amount of overpayment miscalculated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">application for interlocutory injunction restraining respondent from requiring applicant to pay amount of alleged overpayment or treating failure to pay as grounds for termination of dealership agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">claim in promissory estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">claim for breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether either claim gives rise to a serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether balance of convenience favours grant of interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether discretionary factors operate to prevent such relief being granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] VSC 479">industrial action by members of union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] VSC 479">strike unauthorised by union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] VSC 479">repudiated by union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] VSC 479">responsibility of union for strike</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] VSC 479">injunction against members of union but not union.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">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="cp5.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">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="cp5.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">mareva injunctions and other interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">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="cp5.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether effect of such injunction requires company to trade while insolvent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether injunction necessary to prevent frustration of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether confined to maintaining status quo at the time of making application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether available to protect the subject matter of litigation conferring greater rights than when application made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether appropriate on balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">effect on third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">appointment of administrators under pt 5.3a of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">powers and duties in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">personal liability in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">jurisdiction of court fettering discretion of administrators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">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="cp5.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">stevedoring industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">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="cp5.24">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">nature of interlocutory injunctive relief available under s 298u of that act. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">joint or several tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory injunction an appropriate remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory mandatory injunction an appropriate remedy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices act, 1974 , s. 45d(14)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">application for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">"serious question to be tried"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">balance of convenience.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">secondary boycott</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">acting in concert</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">duress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">application for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">difficult questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45d(1a).  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45d. held: (1) it is not sufficient for the purposes of establishing upon an interlocutory hearing that parties had engaged in conduct "in concert" as required by s. 45d (3) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) for the conduct to have been engaged in by one of the parties under duress.  r. v. lowrey  king (no. 2) (1972) vr 560 ; r. v. matusevich  thompson [1976] vicrp 47 ; (1976) vr 470 ; r. v. harding (1976) 129; r. v. evans (no. 1) (1976) vr 517 ; barton v. armstrong (1976) ac 104 , referred to.  (2) the concept of acting in concert in s. 45d(3) appears to require a consensual element.  the king and the attorney-general of the commonwealth v. associated northern collieries pty ltd [1911] hca 73 ; (1911) 14 clr 387 , applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">action for infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">principles governing grant or refusal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l2">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l3">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 494 Industrial action etc. must not be taken before nominal expiry date of collective agreement or workplace determinations</title>
<title id="l4">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 496 Orders and injunctions against industrial action--general</title>
<title id="l5">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 838 Interim injunctions</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 412 Information as to compromise with creditors</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">application by liquidators for judicial advice and directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">responsible entity in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">sale of land on which citrus schemes conducted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">sale to be completed unencumbered by growers' rights to use and enjoy the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">scheme constitution amended to include the power in the responsible entity to terminate the growers' licenses with respect to the use of the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">whether liquidators justified in procuring the extinguishment of growers' rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">net proceeds to be held on trust pending determination of persons entitled to receive the proceeds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">s 511 of the corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">judge : davies j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">17, 22, 24 february 2010 date of judgment : 26 february 2010 case may be cited as : re timbercorp securities limited (in liq) (acn 092 311 469) medium neutral citation : [2010] vsc 050</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">application by liquidators for judicial advice and directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">responsible entity in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">sale of land on which citrus schemes conducted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">sale to be completed unencumbered by growers' rights to use and enjoy the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">scheme constitution amended to include the power in the responsible entity to terminate the growers' licenses with respect to the use of the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">whether liquidators justified in procuring the extinguishment of growers' rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">net proceeds to be held on trust pending determination of persons entitled to receive the proceeds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">s 511 of the corporations act 2001 (cth).  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">power to amend a scheme constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">requirements for a responsible entity to amend a constitution unilaterally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">s 601gc of the corporations act 2001 (cth).  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">unilateral action by responsible entity to amend scheme constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">whether responsible entity considered whether the amendment "adversely affected members' rights"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">whether consideration reasonably based.  liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">duties as a liquidator of a company which is the responsible entity of a managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">whether conflict of interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">citing from="[2010] VSC 50">whether breach of fiduciary duty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">application by liquidators for directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">responsible entity in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">sale by responsible entity of schemes' interest in olive plantations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">liquidators justified in agreeing to sell plantations and extinguish all the rights of the growers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">application to reverse or modify the decision of the liquidators as to the preferred bidder dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 530">s 477(2b), s 511, s 568(1a) and s 1321 of the corporations act 2001 .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 50" id="cs0">24 In the first place, the liquidators' duties, as liquidators of TSL, are not solely to the growers under the scheme. Finkelstein J said in Timbercorp Securities Limited (In Liquidation) v WA Chip and Pulp Co Pty Ltd: [25]

 It is, I think, necessary to say something about the position of a liquidator of a responsible entity which is in the course of being wound up in insolvency. The liquidator is fiduciary. The principal beneficiaries of the duties owed by the liquidator in their capacity as a fiduciary are those who are interested in the liquidation, namely the creditors and members.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 530" id="cs1">46 In the context of reference to the discussion of these proposals I should reaffirm the position that it is not the role of the Court to compare proposals or bids of this nature; it is for the commercial judgment of the liquidators in this instance. 47 Finally, it was submitted in support of the Horden application that the liquidators have a conflict of duty in that they hold a 19.4 per cent equity interest in Boundary Bend Ltd, and I refer to paragraph 69(f) of Mr Korda's affidavit. 48 Reference was made to a number of authorities in support of the proposition that the liquidators have a duty to act in the best interests of creditors and others interested in the winding up of all companies of which they are liquidators, referring particularly to the case of Timbercorp Securities in Liquidation v Western Australian Chip  Pulp Co. [2] . 49 In terms of conflicting duties particular reference is made to the judgment of His Honour Finkelstein J, in the Federal Court in a case of re Greight Pty Ltd. [3] His Honour said:

 ... If there are, or are likely to be disputes between companies in liquidation that are under the control of one liquidator, then as a general rule different persons should be appointed as liquidator to each company.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 180 Care and diligence--civil obligation only</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 181 Good faith--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 182 Use of position--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 568 Disclaimer by liquidator; application to Court by party to contract</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FA Responsible entity to be public company and hold Australian financial services licence</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FB Responsible entity to operate scheme</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FC Duties of responsible entity</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FD Duties of officers of responsible entity</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FS Rights, obligations and liabilities of former responsible entity</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 62 Information etc. in relation to certain applications</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190A Registrar to consider claims</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190B Registration: conditions about merits of the claim</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190C Registration: conditions about procedural and other matters</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 80 Injunctions.</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 82 Actions for damages.</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 87 Ancillary orders.</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">appeal from decision of single judge of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">amendment to raise issues not before trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">applicant british subject migrated to australia as child with family in 1954 prior to commencement of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">applicant remained in australia at all times after entry but is not an australian citizen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">respondent minister purported to cancel on character grounds a transitional (permanent) visa said to be held by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">whether applicant was the "holder" of a transitional (permanent) visa as sought to be cancelled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">whether a transitional (permanent) visa is "granted" for purposes of s 501(2) migration act so as to be susceptible of cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">whether minister purported to cancel absorbed person visa directly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 132">appeal allowed though without identification of error on the part of the trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal affirming decision of delegate of minister to cancel appellant's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">where appellant a non-citizen resident in australia since 1980</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">where appellant granted transitional permanent visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">where appellant convicted of a large number of criminal offences in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">where minister cancelled appellant's transitional permanent visa on character grounds pursuant to s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">whether applicant held absorbed person visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">whether absorbed person visa and transitional permanent visa held simultaneously</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">whether tribunal required to consider effect of cancellation of appellant's absorbed person visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">whether power conferred by s 501(2) limited by terms of s 200 and s 201 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">whether s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) infringes chapter 111 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">whether s 501 used for the purpose of punishment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">whether tribunal member properly took into account expectations of australian community. held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">appellant held both transitional permanent visa and absorbed person visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">tribunal not required to take into account effect of cancellation of absorbed person visa in decision regarding cancellation of transitional permanent visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">s 501 of migration act 1958 (cth) not limited by s 200 and s 201</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">s 501(2) not unconstitutional</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">no evidence tribunal member exercised power for improper or punitive purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">tribunal member did take expectations of australian community into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 20">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">discontinuance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">where applicant discontinued proceedings with leave of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">difference between circumstances where proceedings are discontinued with leave and without leave of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">principles governing award of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">no express provision in the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">award of costs in the discretion of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">underlying policy in the federal court rules when proceedings are discontinued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">no determination on merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">whether the proceedings futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">futility a matter of fact not subjective or objective belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">public interest litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">regulation of airspace</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">no personal interest in litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">reasonableness of parties' conduct in the circumstances of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 997">no order as to costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 786">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 786">leave to discontinue proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 786">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 786">applicant sought order that respondent pay the applicant's costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 786">reasonableness of respondent's conduct in the circumstances of the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 786">no order as to costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">griffith university v tang  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">exclusion of respondent from phd candidature programme conducted by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">where appellant is a body created by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">power of appellant to function as a university and to confer higher education awards derived from statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision to which the judicial review act 1991 (q) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision made under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">relevance of nature of relationship subsisting between parties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 20 Exercise of original jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 13 Lawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 29 Visas</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 189 Detention of unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 195A Minister may grant detainee visa (whether or not on application)</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 477 Time limits on applications to the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1) 2008 (NO. 85, 2008) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 30">decision of migration review tribunal refusing partner visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 30">decision of primary judge affirming the decision of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 30">whether tribunal erred in failing to have regard to the social aspects of the relationship as required by reg 1.15a(3)(c) of migration regulations 1994</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 30">role of appellate court in cases where decision appealed from involves an inference as to whether tribunal had overlooked a material issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">application for extension of time to lodge notice of appeal from decision of the administrative appeals tribunal ("the aat")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">appeal from that decision of the aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">whether decision of the aat should be set aside and remitted to the aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">original dispute over entitlement of applicant to receive child support payments from the second respondent pursuant to the child support (assessment) act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">second decision published by aat following letter from the department of human services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">outcome of first aat decision reversed by second aat decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">principles relevant to exercise of court's discretion to extend time during which an appeal may be instituted against the aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">whether aat made error of law in failing to provide adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">whether applicant was denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">whether aat's decision was irrational or illogical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">principles in minister for immigration and citizenship v szmds [2010] hca 16 ; (2010) 240 clr 611</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">whether aat had power to make second decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 1146">principles in minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v bhardwaj [2002] hca 11 ; (2002) 209 clr 597</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1146" id="cs0">The obligation of the AAT to give reasons was recently summarised by Edmonds J in Sagigi v Comcare [2009] FCA 385 in the following terms:

 [17] Similar observations were more recently made by Flick J in Comcare v Davies (2008) 173 IR 294 at [31] and [32]:

 31 ...The nature and extent of this obligation [under s 43(2B) of the AAT Act] has been extensively canvassed. For the purposes of the resolution of the present appeal it is sufficient to note that the reasons of the Tribunal are "meant to inform and not to be scrutinised upon over-zealous judicial review by seeking to discern whether some inadequacy may be gleaned from the way in which the reasons are expressed": Minister for Immigration  Ethnic Affairs v Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; [1996] 185 CLR 259 at 272. But it is equally important "to review the Tribunal's reasons to be satisfied that the Tribunal has in fact had regard to the matters which it must address": Zhang v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 30 at [14] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1072" id="cs1">The applicant asserts, in his notice of appeal, that the Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision declining to hold that it had jurisdiction in the matter. Section 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) obliges the Tribunal to include in its written reasons its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. In my judgment, the Tribunal's reasons amply indicate why it made the decision which it did. The relevant legal principle to assess the adequacy of reasons has recently been discussed, together with a number of authorities, in Sagigi v Comcar [2009] FCA 385. In this matter, the Tribunal's reasons indicate the material upon which it made its decision that it did not have jurisdiction, it referred to the relevant statutory provisions, and explained its understanding of those provisions, and why it reached the decision which it did. In my view, there is no failure on the part of the Tribunal to comply with s 43(2B) of the AAT Act. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l4">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 24 Compensation for injuries resulting in permanent impairment</title>
<title id="l5">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 27 Compensation for non-economic loss</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1180">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1180">draft expert report held by respondent's former solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1180">whether privileged from production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">esso australia resources limited v the commissioner of taxation  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether test for privilege is "dominant purpose" test or "sole purpose" test.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">client legal privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">test for</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether "dominant purpose or sole purpose".  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">influence on common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">evidence act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">applicable in three australian jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether enactments affect development of common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">significance of non-enactment in other jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">relevance (if any) of act to application to review past authority of high court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">pending special leave application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">non-determination of substantive application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">need for special circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">extraordinary nature of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">special rules for stay of orders designed to protect public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">sequestration order in bankrupt's estate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.   bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">special leave application to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">application for stay of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">effect on tenure of councillor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">in local government authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">relevance of interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.   local government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">elected councillor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">disqualification from office by reason of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">application for stay pending special leave application to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">effect of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l1">SUPREME COURT RULES 1970 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] WASC 255">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] WASC 255">confiscation of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] WASC 255">freezing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] WASC 255">whether undertaking as to damages to be required from dppcriminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] WASC 255">confiscation of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] WASC 255">application for variation to freezing order to make provision for legal expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] WASC 255">factors to be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] WASC 225">criminal profits confiscation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] WASC 225">land frozen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] WASC 225">extent of interests restrained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] WASC 225">whether mortgagee's rights are frozen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] WASC 225">whether a power of sale can be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 21">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 21">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 21">declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 21">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 21">whether court has power under s 80 of trade practices act 1974 to grant injunction prohibiting what would otherwise be lawful activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 21">nature of power to grant injunction "in such terms as the court determines to be appropriate"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 21">need for nexus between proven contravention of part v of trade practices act and the prohibition embodied in the injunction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1253">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1253">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1253">application by asic on grounds of insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1253">whether asic should be required to give undertaking as to damages when seeking appointment of provisional liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">consent orders including undertakings about future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">undertaking extending beyond court's power to restrain conduct by injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 45a, 80 , 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 22 , 23 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">the applicant file and serve any submissions and further material in relation to penalty and financial compensation orders against the first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh respondents on or before 17 september 2009. service of the above material be effected by the means set out in order 2 of the court's orders of 31 july 2009, namely, that the material be served on the respondents at the following addresses by prepaid post: 2.1. first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">c/</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">tarek salcedo, 43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 2.2. second respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">c/</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">denham  associates, suite 8, 3990 pacific highway, loganholme, queensland, 4219 2.3. fourth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 2.4. fifth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 2.5. seventh respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 887">43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 the matter be re-listed for directions in relation to any penalty hearing as against the first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh respondents at 9:30am on 18 september 2009.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 666">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 666">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 666">interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 666">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 666">balance of convenience</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 887" id="cs0">On 22 May 2009, for reasons which I then gave, I granted certain interlocutory injunctive relief on the application of the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) - Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong [2009] FCA 539. These reasons should be read in conjunction with those of 22 May 2009. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 666" id="cs1">I accept Mr Webb's submission that the observations of Logan J in Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong [2009] FCA 539 at [1] and [28] are distinguishable from the present matter. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA AUTHORITY ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA AUTHORITY ACT 2005 - SECT 6 Establishment</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN COMMUNICATIONS AND MEDIA AUTHORITY ACT 2005 - SECT 8 ACMA's telecommunications functions</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 64 Rights of parties</title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 80 Common law to govern</title>
<title id="l6">SPAM ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l7">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 16 Unsolicited commercial electronic messages must not be sent</title>
<title id="l8">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 26 Civil action for recovery of pecuniary penalties</title>
<title id="l9">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 32 Injunctions</title>
<title id="l10">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 33 Interim injunctions</title>
<title id="l11">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 36 Other powers of the Federal Court unaffected</title>
<title id="l12">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l13">TELECOMMUNICATIONS (INTERCEPTION AND ACCESS) ACT 1979 </title>
<title id="l14">TELECOMMUNICATIONS (NUMBERING CHARGES) ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l15">TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CARRIER LICENCE CHARGES) ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l16">TELECOMMUNICATIONS (CONSUMER PROTECTION AND SERVICE STANDARDS) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l18">DO NOT CALL REGISTER ACT 2006 (NO. 88, 2006) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1045">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1045">s440a(2) adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1045">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1045">deed of company arrangement.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 2017">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 2017">application for winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 2017">administrators appointed after winding up application filed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 2017">adjournment of winding up application under s 440a(2) of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 2017">consideration of whether the interests of creditors are properly served by adjourning the application for a limited time where the company has already ceased trading and there is evidence of misconduct by the sole director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 2017">adjournment refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 2017" id="cs0">In the circumstances where an administrator has been appointed to a company, s440A(2) of the Act requires the Court to adjourn the winding-up application filed by GRD if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of the company's creditors for the company to continue under administration as an alternative to proceeding with the winding-up. Mr McConnel appeared for Mr Duncan and Mr Powell. He submitted that, taking into account the short period of time that the administrators have been in office, there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the Court that the winding-up application should be adjourned for a short period of time in order to allow the administrators to continue to investigate the company's affairs. Mr McConnel has proposed the winding-up application be listed again before the expiry of the 20 day period, during which time the administrators are required to hold the second meeting of creditors pursuant to s439A of the Act, which Mr McConnel has informed me is due to be held on 30 October 2008. Mr McConnel has submitted that this course was taken by Greenwood J in Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Q Bridge Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1300 (' Q Bridge' ). In Q Bridge , Greenwood J was satisfied that a short adjournment of eight working days was in the interests of the creditors of Q Bridge , where that company was trading and there was some evidence to suggest that allowing the administration to continue would provide a better outcome to the creditors than proceeding with the winding-up. Greenwood J also took into account (at [22]) the following factors:
 In this particular case, there is no persuasive conduct on the part of the officers of the company which would suggest that there has been insolvent trading, although, of course, there simply is no evidence of any of these conduct questions, because the voluntary administrators have not had sufficient time to examine the various matters.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 440A Winding up company</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459E Creditor may serve statutory demand on company</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459P Who may apply for order under section 459A</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 86">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 86">australian crime commission examiner issued notice to health services provider requiring production of medical records of eight female aboriginal children pursuant to s 29(1)(b) australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 86">whether the best interests of those eight children was a relevant consideration which the examiner was required to take into account in issuing that notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 86">whether the examiner had regard to the best interests of those eight children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 86">consideration of whether the best interests of those children was a "primary consideration"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 437">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 437">circumstances in which part of a defence may be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 437">preliminary determination of a point that was not 'fairly arguable' under a strike out application, following full argument by senior counsel for the respective parties and submissions from the intervener</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">contravention of workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">requirements for employees' approval of union collective agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">majority approval must be obtained in manner foreshadowed in information statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">reasonable opportunity for all employees to participate in approval process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">contraventions arising from informal show of hands at meeting without notice after negative secret ballot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">whether false, misleading or threatening statements made by management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">lodgement of agreement lacking approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">whether court should declare agreement void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">effect of 2008 amendments to workplace relations act.  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">contravention of workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">inducement of employees to cease to belong to a union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">employer secretly negotiating union collective agreement with new union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">promotion of membership of new union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">discriminatory access to employees given to new union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">contravening object or intention of employer inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">standing of federal branch of union to apply to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2008] FMCA 604">whether injunctive relief appropriate.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">appeal from decision of a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">whether the trial judge erred in holding the requirements of s 412(2) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) had not been satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">whether an order making a workplace agreement void has the effect of rendering the superseded pre-reform certified agreement operative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">whether an employee collective agreement could be made if the employees had not been given a 'reasonable opportunity' to approve the employee collective agreement under s 340(2) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">cross-appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">whether the trial judge erred in determining the making of false and misleading statements had deprived the employees of a 'reasonable opportunity' to decide whether to approve the workplace agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 42">whether the trial judge had applied the incorrect tests in determining whether there had been contraventions of ss 340 and 341 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1425">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1425">what constitutes a failure by an employer to give all of the persons employed at the time whose employment will be subject to an employee collective agreement a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they want to approve the agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1425">circumstances in which an order declaring a workplace agreement void may be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">in the matter of an application by the chief commissioner of police (vic)  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">appeal from order of trial judge to prohibit, for a limited time, the publication of methods and material used by police in murder investigations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether appeal to court of appeal barred by s 17a(3) of the supreme court act 1986 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether appeal lay as of right, or only by way of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">provision of additional written submissions following conclusion of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">proper procedure to be observed.  procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether court of appeal decided substantive issues without providing the chief commissioner of police sufficient opportunity to present argument.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">manner of conduct of proceedings in court of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">elaboration of record by affidavit evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether affidavit admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether orders subject to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether disjoined from administration of the law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether statutory publication prohibition orders sufficiently connected with concluded criminal trials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 18">whether necessary and appropriate to consider questions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">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="cp9.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">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="cp10.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 20">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 20">master and servant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 20">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 20">safe system of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 20">employer's duty to provide</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 20">scope of duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 20">contributory negligence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">section 155 notice served on appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act for reasons for decision to issue notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">whether issue of s.155 notices is one to which the administrative decisions (judicial review) act applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">whether appellant is "person aggrieved"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">whether s.155 notices exempted from provisions of administrative decisions (judicial review) act by second schedule of that act.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.13(1) , s. 13 (2), s. 13 (4a)(b), schedule 2 para.(f).  trade practices act 1974 , s.155.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">notice under s. 155 of trade practices act served on appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act for reasons for decision to issue notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">whether issue of s. 155 notice is decision to which administrative decisions (judicial review) act applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">whether appellant was "person aggrieved"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">whether s. 155 notice exempted from provisions of administrative decisions (judicial review) act by sched. 2 to that act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 13 (1), (2), (4a) (b), (11), sched. 2, par. (f)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 211">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 155. a notice under s. 155 of the trade practices act , stating that the chairman of the trade practices commission had reason to believe that the appellant was capable of furnishing information and producing documents relating to a possible contravention of s. 46 of the act, required the appellant to furnish certain specified information to the commission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">supreme court order refusing to set aside default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">whether order interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 35</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">high court rules, o. 70, r. 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">supreme court rules (n.s.w.) pt 40, r. 9(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">employee collective agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">whether employer has given employees a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they want to approve the agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">nature of a reasonable opportunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">employees employed in employer's commercial construction division and employer's client services division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">those in commercial construction division on various sites in south-east queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">whether failure of employer to conduct a meeting of employees negated reasonable opportunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 187">whether misstatement of period of agreement in heading on ballot paper negated reasonable opportunity</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] ACTCA 15" id="cs0">In Communications Electrical Electronic Energy Information Postal Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 750 Reeves J said at [63]:

 Before leaving this matter, I should record that after I reserved my decision on 16 June 2009, Mr Boyce submitted some further written submissions. In Communications Electrical Electronic Energy Information Postal Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 750 ; (2009) 186 IR 82 Reeves J said at [63]:

 Before leaving this matter, I should record that after I reserved my decision on 16 June 2009, Mr Boyce submitted some further written submissions.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 187" id="cs1">2 The appeal is from a judgment of a single judge of the Court, published as Communications Electrical Electronic Energy Information Postal Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 750. On 30 June 2009, his Honour made a declaration to the effect that Blue Star had not complied with its obligation under s 340(2)(a) of the Workplace Relations Act and a declaration that the proposed agreement, the Blue Star Pacific Employee Agreement 2009 - 2013 had not been approved validly pursuant to s 340. His Honour's reasons for judgment were published on 14 July 2009. Declarations substantially in the form made by his Honour were sought in the proceeding at first instance by the respondent to this appeal, the Communications Electrical Electronic Energy Information Postal Plumbing  Allied Services Union of Australia ("the CEPU"), an organisation of employees registered pursuant to the Workplace Relations Act at the time, and now pursuant to the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth).
  72 The primary judge held, firstly, that the appellant was required to, but did not give, its employees a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they wanted to approve the proposed agreement because, in all the circumstances, it did not afford them the opportunity to meet together at the same time and place and discuss the proposed agreement as a group (see Communications Electrical Electronic Energy Information Postal Plumbing  Allied Services Union of Australia v Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 750 at [62.1] ). Secondly, his Honour held, at [62.2], that the employees were likely to be adversely affected by false information on the relevant ballot paper about the period of operation of the proposed agreement, such that they were denied a reasonable opportunity to decide whether they wanted to approve the proposed agreement.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FWA 750" id="cs2">8 [2009] FCA 750 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FWA 301" id="cs3">11 CEPU v Blue Star Pacific Pty Ltd (2009) FCA 750. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">proceedings relating to decisions of minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs refusing grant of student visa and refusing revocation of refusal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">where minister contended certain information protected under s 503a of migration act 1958 ("the act ")  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether anshun estoppel should apply to judicial review of administrative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">questions concerning the construction of s 503a of the act unreasonably not raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether special circumstances exist that permit raising questions in these proceedings that should reasonably have been raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">no special circumstances found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 289">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 289">prerogative writ relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 289">whether informal discovery should be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 289">whether arguable case disclosed without informal discovery.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v haji ibrahim  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">clan-based conflict in somalia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">whether persecution on convention grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">use of terms "civil war", "civil conflict" and "systematic persecution"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">whether convention definition permits or requires examination of the "motivation" for or "objects of" a "civil war" or "civil conflict" or demonstration of a "differential operation" upon an applicant's social group.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 908">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] lazar kalaba v the queen [1996] fca 908 (13 september 1996)</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 417 Minister may substitute more favourable decision</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">immigration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">extended eligibility (spouse) entry permit and spouse (after entry) entry permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">condition of no material change</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">whether a breakdown of the marriage involved that the holder of the permit "fails to comply with a condition" of the permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">minister's powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">provision in regulations for cases of violence exercised by australian spouse against migrant spouse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">requirements of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">whether very abrupt limitation of time for submissions denied natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">whether regs. 126 and 135 of migration regulations contemplated a two years delay before any decision of an application grounded on marriage.  interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">provision affecting liberties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 581">noscitur a sociis rule.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">notice to show cause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">non-disclosure of material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">reasonableness of time to respond</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">the substance of concerns disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">allegation of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">no evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 370">application dismissed   legislation: corporations (aboriginal and torres strait islander) act 2006 (cth) ss 487-1, 487-5, 487-10</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 370" id="cs0">

The detail there provided as to the " disputes " denies any substance to a submission of the Applicant that it could not meaningfully respond to the concerns being raised. There is no reason to question the concluding statement as to what had in fact been relied upon. No question, it is concluded, arises as to the delegate considering potentially further prejudicial material and there being a " subconscious influence of non-disclosed material ": Billabong Aboriginal Corporation v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [2007] FCA 1496 at [41] , [2007] FCA 1496 ; 100 ALD 42 at 50.
  The material, identified in the Applicant's Outline of Submissions as " extraneous documents ", was extensive. How far those " extraneous documents " fell short of requiring the delegate to disclose the entirety of his file is not known. Clearly enough, not every document need be disclosed: Billabong Aboriginal Corporation v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [2007] FCA 1496 , 100 ALD 42. A notice to show cause had there been issued under s 71 of the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth) calling upon the applicant to show cause why an administrator should not be appointed. Declaratory and injunctive relief was sought precluding the Registrar from appointing an administrator " without first providing Billabong with access to the Registrar's entire file of documents and correspondence 'relating to the applicant' ": Billabong at [7].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l1">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 8 Information to be published--what information?</title>
<title id="l2">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 20 Forms of access</title>
<title id="l3">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 58 Powers of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 60 Audit of records and balance sheets.</title>
<title id="l7">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 71 Application for judicial management of Aboriginal corporation.</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS (ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER) ACT 2006 (NO. 124, 2006) </title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS (ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER) CONSEQUENTIAL, TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER MEASURES ACT 2006 (NO. 125, 2006) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">act of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">debtor remaining out of australia with intent to defeat or delay creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">existing or aniticipated creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">whether intent must relate to more than one creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">whether intent to defeat or delay creditors must be debtor's sole intent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1974] HCA 43">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth). s. 40 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 546">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 546">consideration of an application to strike out an amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 546">consideration of contentions relating to s 121 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 26">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 26">consideration of an application for an extension of time for the filing of an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 546" id="cs0">2 The issues framed by the Statement of Claim prior to amendment are described comprehensively in Duus v Dalvella Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1921 ( 'Duus v Dalvella' ). That decision determined, largely unfavourably to Dalvella and Donemate, their challenge to the adequacy of particulars given by the Trustees of the Statement of Claim. Some of the arguments dealt with in that decision have been raised again in the present application although on this occasion in the context of whether the Amended Statement of Claim properly pleads a cause of action reliant upon the integers of s 121 of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ('the Act'). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 26" id="cs1">18 The paragraph of the primary judgment which dealt with the issue of future creditors and facts giving rise to relevant inferences was [29] of Duus v Dalvella Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1921 which is in these terms:

 29. As to para 1(c) of the Request which seeks particulars of each and every one of the creditors the applicants contend Waters intended to defraud, the applicants say the reference to 'creditors' in para 22.1 is a reference to 'all of [Waters] then present creditors and all future creditors ... including Jefferson and Stevenson and BSA'. The applicants say these particulars are sufficient and adequate as the response identifies all the then present creditors and, by class, all of the future creditors with a specific reference to two identified future creditors.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 56E Effects of acceptance of a debtor's petition against a partnership</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 57 Debtor's petition by joint debtors who are not partners</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 115 Commencement of bankruptcy</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 121 Transfers to defeat creditors</title>
<title id="l6">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 188 Debtor may authorise trustee or solicitor to be controlling trustee [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l7">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 1996 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1473">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1473">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal affirming a decision of the social security appeals tribunal that applicant could be required to enter a newstart activity agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1473">notice of appeal failed to disclose question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1473">applicant sought to raise fresh ground that judgment annexing transcript of oral reasons did not constitute proper reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1473">reasons for decision were clear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1473">other proposed fresh ground not in issue before aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1473">appeal dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">dismissal by federal magistrates court of australia ('fmca') of application for judicial review of decision of refugee review tribunal as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether order of dismissal final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">extension of time required in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">tribunal's decision handed down on 16 july 1999, before fmca existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether 28-day time limit imposed by s 477(1a) of migration act 1958 (cth) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">history of provisions by which fmca given jurisdiction and legislative source of 28-day time limit discussed. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">dismissal by federal magistrates court of australia ('fmca') of application for judicial review of decision of refugee review tribunal as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether order of dismissal final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">extension of time required in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">tribunal's decision handed down on 16 july 1999, before fmca existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether 28-day time limit imposed by s 477(1a) of migration act 1958 (cth) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">history of provisions by which fmca given jurisdiction and legislative source of 28-day time limit discussed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">new start allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">eligibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">assets test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">assessment of living arrangements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">commonwealth to act as model litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">concession by respondent not accepted by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] AATA 125">decision set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 55ZF Attorney-General may issue directions</title>
<title id="l8">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l9">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 605 Newstart Employment Pathway Plans--requirement</title>
<title id="l10">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 606 Newstart Employment Pathway Plans--terms</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>