Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">decision of minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">protection visa sought on basis that appellant was a practitioner of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate made adverse findings on credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate failed to put information to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether failure to have regard to information supplied by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether minister's delegate failed to consider future risk of harm to appellant in circumstances where appellant's claim to be an active proponent of falun gong in australia had been accepted. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether expedient in the interests of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">dismissal of application seeking review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal refusing an application for a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">appellant an indo-fijian resident of fiji</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">neighbouring native fijians driving appellant out of her home by harassment and assault</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">claim by appellant that she could not relocate within fiji</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">whether unreasonable for appellant to relocate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">whether in considering reasonableness of relocation tribunal failed to ask correct question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">whether the tribunal misapplied the test for relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 37">whether such misapplication constitutes jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 320">citizenship and migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 320">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 320">where persecution claimed as a result of imputed political opinion arising from appellant selling electrical goods to sri lankan nationals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 320">where nature of persecution claimed was illegitimate maltreatment by authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 320">whether asylum-seekers required or expected to modify behaviour or take reasonable steps to avoid persecutory harm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 320">whether there is a distinction between actual and imputed membership of a protected class of citizens under refugee convention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">tribunal had regard to information from lonely planet guide in rejecting aspect of appellant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether failure to provide appellant with opportunity to comment upon information constituted breach of s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether information "the reason, or a part of the reason" for affirming decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">point raised on appeal having previously been abandoned at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether leave to rely upon proposed ground should be granted words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">"the reason, or a part of the reason"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">s 424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">applicant s v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">well-founded fear of persecution for reason of membership of particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">particular social group identified as able-bodied young men from afghanistan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether member of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether afghan society must perceive the particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether enmity or malignity necessary to establish persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether facts reveal law of general application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether implementation of law of general application can amount to persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 25">whether implementation of ad hoc policy can amount to persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v respondents s152/2003  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas by de facto husband and wife nationals of ukraine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">husband claimed to suffer religious persecution as jehovah's witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugee review tribunal found that incidents of which husband complained were individual and random incidents and did not amount to persecution, and that the chance that he would suffer persecution in future was remote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">tribunal rejected claim that state encouraged or condoned persecution of jehovah's witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether full court of federal court erred in concluding that tribunal committed jurisdictional error in failing to consider a different claim of whether the husband might suffer future harm from private individuals because of religious belief and whether the government of ukraine was able in a practical sense to stop such harm occurring</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">absence of evidence before tribunal to support a conclusion that ukraine did not provide level of protection required.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">relevance of attitude or capacity of state to whether fear of harm well-founded, to whether there is persecution, to whether a person is outside country of nationality owing to well-founded fear of persecution and to unwillingness of person to seek protection of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">non-state actor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">harm by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">state complicity in persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution tolerated or condoned by state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">failure of state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">unwilling or unable to provide protection.  international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">treaty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">"persecution"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">different theories of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">meaning of treaty provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">proper approach to meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">primacy of text</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.28">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">approaches of courts in countries of refuge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.29">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.30">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether a third theory applicable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v khawar  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">applicant, a citizen of pakistan, allegedly victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband and his family</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">whether failure by state to provide effective police protection against domestic violence capable of constituting persecution for a convention reason where the feared violence is perpetrated by non-state agents for non-convention reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">whether convention requirement that putative refugee be "unwilling to avail himself of the protection" of the country of nationality refers to protection by the state within the country of origin or to diplomatic or consular protection available to citizens who are outside the country of origin</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">whether selective or discriminatory failure by state to enforce the criminal law against non-state actors who assault members of a particular social group capable of constituting persecution under the convention.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">membership of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">applicant, a citizen of pakistan, allegedly victim of domestic violence at the hands of her husband and his family</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">whether "women in pakistan" a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 14">whether applicant may fall within a more narrowly defined social group.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">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="cp15.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">internal protection principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">well-founded fear of persecution not extending to whole country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">relocation in country of nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">reasonableness of relocation alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">nature of inquiry decision-maker required to undertake.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">limitation of actions (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to actions founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">onus of proving fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.  practice and procedure (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to action founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">claim outside six year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">defence that action statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">no reply alleging fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">non-appearance of defendant at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">judgment for defendant on ground that no trust established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">finding of fraud on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">ground of appeal added by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">allegation of technical invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">effect of seeking new trial on different issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">limited public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.),s. 75a(6).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">plea of authorship and ownership of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">general traverse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">defendant's case that copyright vested in partnership of which author a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no plea of assignment or transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">point not made issue by conduct at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">whether maintainable on appeal.  partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">acquisition from individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership act 1958 (vict.), s. 24(1).*   * section 24 of the partnership act 1958 (vict.) provides: "all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the partnership stock or acquired whether by purchase or otherwise on account of the firm or for the purposes and in the course of the partnership business are called in this act partnership property and must be held and applied by the partners exclusively for the purposes of the partnership and in accordance with the partnership agreement."  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">devolution by operation of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no express assignment of copyright by individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 35 , 196 (1).+  + section 196(1) of the copyright act 1968 (cth) provides: "copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."  breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.22">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">tax minimization scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.23">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.24">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">know-how</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.25">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">scope of protection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 394">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 394">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 394">whether second to fourth applicants made applications in their own right or as members of the family unit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 394">whether tribunal failed to consider persecution on the basis of race</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 394">tribunal's findings reasonably open to it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 394">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 394">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 152">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 152">responsibility of claimant to make out case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 152">scant material provided in support of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 152">failure to attend interview with delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 152">failure to attend hearing before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 152">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 1">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 1">review of refugee tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 1">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 1">applicant claiming persecution in fiji</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 1">domestic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 1">whether the tribunal misconstrued the convention or whether the tribunal failed to consider all of the integers of the applicant's claims considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 1">tribunal failed to consider the significance of entrenched cultural factors in assessing the applicant's claims of a failure of state protection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 655">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 655">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 655">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 655">issue in dispute is relocation within india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 655">did the tribunal address the essential elements to avoid possible future persecution by relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 655">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 655">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 520">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 520">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 520">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 520">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 520">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 77">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 77">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 77">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 77">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 77">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 875">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 875">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 852">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 852">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 852">whether tribunal failed to apply the correct test of a well-founded fear of persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">whether the court has no jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">where application not filed within 35 days of the tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">whether explanation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">citizen of indonesia who was a child at the time of the tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">where applicant's mother claimed a fear of persecution arising out of domestic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">whether convention nexus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.12">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">whether a member of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.13">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">whether state protection available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.14">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">whether tribunal applied the wrong test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.15">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">whether relief should be refused in the court's discretion because of lengthy and unexplained delay.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.16">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.17">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">application for extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.18">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.19">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">the interests of the administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.20">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">partial explanation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.21">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">applicant was a child for the greater part of the time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.22">citing from="[2009] FMCA 844">application for extension of time granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">reasonably effective state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">domestic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">finding that appellant faced a real chance of serious harm from her husband in the reasonably foreseeable future if she returned to her country of origin</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">existence of state laws and other mechanisms capable of addressing domestic violence claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">allegation that agents of the state nonetheless unwilling or unable to afford protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">discrimination against women embedded in traditional cultural norms and practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">whether tribunal misapprehended the inquiry it was obliged to undertake in relation of effective protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 912">jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 569">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 569">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 569">whether jurisdictional error in relation to consideration of relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 569">whether failure to comply with ss.424(3), 424a or 425 of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 569">whether error of law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 198">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 198">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 198">refusal of skilled australian sponsored migrants visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 198">adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 198">whether finding open to the tribunal considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 198">whether the tribunal breached ss.360 or 359a of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 198">whether the tribunal overlooked an element of the applicants claims considered.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.359a , 360 , 424 , 424a , 425 migration regulations 1994 (cth)  f hoffman-la roche  co v secretary of state for trade and industry [1975] ac 295</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">chinese applicant claiming fear of political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">claims disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">reasoning open on the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">immaterial error of law concerning a convention nexus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">consideration of delay in making claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">no breach of s.424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 175">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 230">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 230">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 230">student (temporary) (class tu) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 230">ielts test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 230">whether the requirement in item 5a407(a) and item 5a407(b) that an applicant achieve a particular overall band score in an ielts test "taken less than 2 years before the date of application" is capable of being satisfied by an ielts test taken after the date of application for review by the migration review tribunal and before the tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 230">whether the tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 230">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 113">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 113">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 113">whether tribunal applied the wrong test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 113">whether apprehended bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 960">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 960">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 960">where tribunal found applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 960">where tribunal found applicant was a person who could reasonably relocate to another state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 960">whether tribunal correctly addressed the question of relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 960">whether failure to comply with s.424a migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where appellant applicant for protection visa under s 65 migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where delegate of first respondent refused application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where tribunal affirmed decision of first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where appellant sought constitutional writs under s 476 migration act 1958 (cth) directed to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where federal magistrate refused application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where appellant a national of nigeria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where appellant convert from islam to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where appellant alleged before tribunal persecution by jihadists acting at behest of appellant's uncle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where tribunal rejected allegation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where appellant claimed to have modified his behaviour due to fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">where appellant put before tribunal medical reports for purpose of responding to issues regarding credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">whether tribunal failed to consider a claim that appellant feared persecution as a convert irrespective of uncle's involvement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">whether tribunal erroneously considered appellant merely as a christian rather than as a convert</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.15">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">whether tribunal imposed requirement upon appellant that he modify his behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.16">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">whether tribunal erred in not having regard to content of medical reports in considering relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.17">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">whether federal magistrate erred in failing to find that tribunal erred in these respects  held: tribunal did not fail to consider whether appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution based on his conversion from islam to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.18">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">tribunal did not overlook difference between a christian and a convert</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.19">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">tribunal did not impose requirement upon appellant that he modify his behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.20">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">relevance of medical reports to relocation not squarely raised before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.21">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">no error shown in decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.22">citing from="[2007] FCA 2050">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">tribunal did not fail to consider an element of the applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">tribunal dealt with applicant's claims as explained and refined by applicant's solicitor at hearing and in post hearing written submission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">tribunal did not apply the wrong test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">tribunal did not apply a balance of probabilities test rather than real chance test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1382">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">"teachers of islam jama'ah"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">law banning islam jama'ah</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">reasonableness of relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">request pursuant to s.417 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.10">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.11">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.12">citing from="[2007] FMCA 965">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">decision of refugee review tribunal to not grant protection visa affirmed by federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">whether s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">where appellant explained inconsistency between visa application and submissions to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">where tribunal referred to explanation in reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">where tribunal did not treat visa application as information under s 424a  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">whether tribunal properly addressed social group claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">whether claim to be member of a social group of socially or politically active buddhists arose on the materials before tribunal procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">application for leave to appeal on grounds not raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 802">where applicant represented before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 643">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 643">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 643">whether s.36(2)(a) migration act requires the tribunal to assess an applicant, first against her country of nationality which in turn requires an investigation and determination of nationality or whether tribunal can assess applicant against country of habitual residence without making a finding as to statelessness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">applicant claiming political persecution in sri lanka</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">whether the applicant had also raised a claim of a fear of persecution based upon his tamil ethnicity, which was not dealt with by the tribunal, considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">tribunal accepted applicant's claim of detention and torture which was irrelevant to his political claim, but which would have been relevant to a claim based upon ethnicity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">claim arising from the applicant's material although not clearly articulated by him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 264">jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">indians persecuted in west bengal as perceived illegal bangladeshi migrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">finding of safe haven elsewhere in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">whether open on the evidence before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">whether misconceived relocation principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">no jurisdictional error shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 636">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">citizenship and migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">review of decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">grounds of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">jurisdictional errors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">whether refugee review tribunal constructively failed to exercise jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp44.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 5">whether refugee review tribunal failed to consider integer of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">applicants are citizens of colombia claiming fear of persecution on the ground of imputed political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">where tribunal found a well-founded fear of persecution for convention reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether tribunal was required to take into account the united nations convention on the rights of the child 1989</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether tribunal was required to treat the best interests of the applicants' children as a primary consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.11">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether the tribunal's decision was based on an unwarranted assumption or was irrational or illogical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.12">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether the tribunal's decision was based on a finding for which there was no evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.13">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether the tribunal denied the applicant procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.14">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether the tribunal applied the wrong test for determining whether it was reasonable for the applicants to relocate within colombia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.15">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">whether the tribunal failed to carry out the review in a bona fide manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.16">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1459">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1317">appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1317">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1317">new grounds of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1317">whether leave should be granted to raise new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1317">whether matter should be remitted to federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1256">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1256">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1256">whether refugee review tribunal erred in failing to consider applicant's medical evidence as part of practical realities in facing relocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1256">whether refugee review tribunal erred in having regard to unreliable independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1256">whether refugee review tribunal denied applicant procedural fairness by failing to put to applicant adverse information upon which it relied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1256">whether applicant's conduct following notification of refugee review tribunal decision was acquiescence by applicant in correctness of refugee review tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1256">whether delay of 2 years unexplained and unwarranted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 309">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 309">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 309">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 309">applicant claiming political persecution in nepal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 309">whether the rrt breached s.424a of the migration act considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 309">insufficient evidence of such a breach.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 309">it is desirable that all relevant issues be identified in proceedings in the federal magistrates court by both the applicant and the minister, rather than to be left to be raised on appeal in the federal court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 394" id="cs0">Further, to SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 (" SZAIX ") per Madgewick J at [37] and [48] to similar effect. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 152" id="cs1">Thus, if the facts are adequately presented for determination, it matters not that a claimant may (for example) have failed to identify the correct Convention " label " on the claim being advanced: SGBB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (" SGBB ") [2003] FCA 709 at [17] , [2003] FCA 709 ; 199 ALR 364 at 368 to 369 per Selway J. As His Honour there observed, " the application is [not] to be treated as an exercise in nineteenth century pleading ". See also: SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 at [51] , [2006] FCA 3 ; 150 FCR 448 at 464 per Madgwick J. Moreover, the difficulties confronting an applicant for refugee status have to be recognised: Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1253 ; (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J. His Honour there expressed this concern as follows:

 Proof of persecution in the context of an application for refugee status is a matter of some complexity.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 1" id="cs2">Consideration of the adequacy of State protection requires an assessment not only of the attitudes and policies of the central government or high government officials, but also whether police, courts and other officials at a local or grassroots level are willing or able to provide effective protection and, if not, whether the failure to provide protection arises for a Convention reason: SZAIX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 at [37] and AZAAR at [23]-[30]. In dealing with such a claim, the Tribunal is required to consider the effectiveness of measures introduced at a national level in actually providing protection to the individual applicant should she return. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 655" id="cs3">The second issue raised in this application is the alleged failure of the Tribunal to properly consider whether the applicant could relocate within India. In the decision of SZOCA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship  Anor [2010] FMCA 520 I reviewed a number of decisions that considered the practical realities that would face an applicant if he or she was required to relocate: Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic affairs [1994] FCA 1253 ; [1994] FCA 1253 ; (1994) 52 FCR 437 , SZATV v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship  Anor [2007] HCA 40 , SZFDV v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship  Anor [2007] HCA 41 , NAIZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 37 at [22] per Branson J and [73] per North J, WALT v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCAFC 2 at [45] , SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 and SZBJI v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 216. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 520" id="cs4">There are a number of decisions that have considered the practical realities that would face an Applicant if he or she was required to relocate: Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1253 ; (1994) 52 FCR 437 , SZATV v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship  Anor [2007] HCA 40 , SZFDV v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship  Anor [2007] HCA 41 , NAIZ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 37 at [22] per Branson J and [73] per North J, WALT v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCAFC 2 at [45] , SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 and SZBJI v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 216. These decisions state that the matter of relocation entails the Tribunal considering the Applicant's personal history, including his language skills, age, education, health, family connections, employment and demonstrated an ability to live independently elsewhere than in the locality of origin ( WALT (supra) at [45]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 77" id="cs5">It is acknowledged that the Applicant is a self-represented litigant, not conversant in the English language, with no knowledge of the administrative or judicial system in which he was attempting to protect his legal position and being forced to deal through an interpreter service in this process. Although the Applicant has not specifically pleaded this issue, it appears that he is attempting to submit that the Tribunal was required to address the practical realities that he and his wife would face if they were to relocate: Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1253 ; (1994) 52 FCR 437 , SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 40 , SZFDV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 41 , NAIZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC per Branson J at [22] and North J at [73], Walt v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCAFC 2 at [45] , SZAIX v Minister for Immigration, and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 , SZBJI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 216. This substantial body of judicial authority established that a Tribunal must give consideration to an Applicant's personal history including his language skills, age, education, health, family connections and employment and demonstrate an ability to live independently elsewhere than in the location of origin. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 875" id="cs6">Firstly, in AZAAR v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship  Refugee Review Tribunal , [13] Finn J at [5] --- [10] set out what his Honour described as the "legal setting" for such appeals. Apart from formally being bound by his Honour's comments, respectfully I adopt them. I set them out below: There has been systematic, recent authoritative analysis of when conduct giving rise to a well founded fear of serious harm at the hands of a non-State actor may constitute persecution because of the unwillingness or inability of the State (or State agents) to discharge its obligation to protect its citizens: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Respondents S152/2003 (2004) 222 CLR 1 ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar [2002] HCA 48 ; (2002) 210 CLR 1 ; Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHL 37 ; [2001] 1 AC 489 ; see also SZAIX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448. I need only note the following for present purposes. It is drawn from the above authorities.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 852" id="cs7">The argument in response to the s.424A invitation did not have to be addressed specifically in the manner contended for in these proceedings. The Tribunal is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in its reasons (see WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 at [46] and SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Another [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 at [33] ). It dealt with the relevant issue, which was the question of whether the applicant, as an ordinary supporter or organiser who was not a member of Parliament, was at risk of serious harm at the hands of pro-Syrian forces. It is well-established that the choice and interpretation of country information and the weight to be given to such information is a matter for the Tribunal alone (see NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [11] --- [13]). Moreover the Tribunal considered whether there was evidence to suggest that perpetrators of the campaign of violence against anti-Syrian law-makers " are interested in targeting individuals with anti-Syrian political beliefs or activists or organisers of anti-Syrian rallies and other anti-Syrian activities" but found no such evidence . Nor was it able to find any evidence to support the applicant's claim about co-operation of Lebanese authorities with Syrians as contended. The Tribunal did accept that people in Lebanon faced some risk of harm " as a result of sectarian violence or war", but considered that this was not a risk of serious harm faced by the applicant by virtue of a Convention reason, but rather a " generalised, undifferentiated risk". </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 844" id="cs8">It is a jurisdictional error only to look at the official position in Indonesia rather than the actual position faced by the review applicant ( SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [11] per Madgwick J at [45]-[46]  [48]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 912" id="cs9">There has been systematic, recent authoritative analysis of when conduct giving rise to a well founded fear of serious harm at the hands of a non-State actor may constitute persecution because of the unwillingness or inability of the State (or State agents) to discharge its obligation to protect its citizens: see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Respondents S152/2003 [2004] HCA 18 ; (2004) 222 CLR 1 ; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Khawar [2002] HCA 48 ; (2002) 210 CLR 1 ; Horvath v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2000] UKHL 37 ; [2001] 1 AC 489 ; see also SZAIX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448. I need only note the following for present purposes. It is drawn from the above authorities. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 569" id="cs10">It was suggested that the application of this test was illustrated by the fact that in NAIZ the Full Court of the Federal Court held that the Tribunal fell into jurisdictional error by failing to give consideration to the practical realities of accommodation for the applicant if she returned to her home country, while in SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Another [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 at [55] --- [64] the Tribunal was found to have failed to acknowledge the major difficulties of a psychological and physical nature which would confront the applicant if she returned to her home country, and hence misapplied the relocation test. Reference was also made to SZBJI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 216 in which Allsop J was said to have held that the Tribunal failed to address the practical reasonableness of relocation.  The applicant submitted that the Tribunal was required to address the practical realities that would face an applicant if he or she relocated (see Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1253 ; (1994) 52 FCR 437 , SZATV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2007] HCA 40 ; (2007) 233 CLR 18 , SZFDV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2007] HCA 41 ; (2007) 233 CLR 51 , NAIZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 37 at [22] per Branson J and [73] per North J, WALT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCAFC 2 at [45] , SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Another [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 and SZBJI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 216). It was submitted that this entailed the Tribunal giving consideration to an applicant's personal history, including his language skills, age, education, health, familial connections, employment and demonstrated ability to live independently elsewhere than in the locality of origin (see WALT at [45]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 198" id="cs11">Such assessments as were made by the Tribunal of the responses provided inherently involved part of the Tribunal's decision-making processes. The rules of procedural fairness: "do not require the decision-maker to disclose what he is minded to decide so that the parties may have a further opportunity of criticising his mental processes before he reaches a final decision: F Hoffman-La Roche  Co v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295 at 369 per Lord Diplock. Procedural fairness does not require giving to an Applicant a running commentary on his prospects of success and warning him of every reason why his claims might not be thought sufficient to justify the relief sought: Applicant S 214 of 2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCA 375 at [32] , [2006] FCA 375 ; [2006] FCA 375 ; 90 ALD 632 at 641 per Edmonds J. An appeal has been dismissed: Applicant S 214/2003 v Refugee Review Tribunal [2006] FCAFC 166. The first respondent submits that the applicant's construction of the section 360 obligation is misconceived and [this] ground of review should be dismissed. At best they were items of oral evidence. Accordingly, even if the Tribunal failed to make reference to them, it is not required to refer to every piece of evidence in its reasons: see WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 at [46]. As Madgwick J stated in SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 at [33] : The Tribunal was under no obligation to recite every piece of evidence before it, and especially not required to recite evidence it found unconvincing on an issue. The Tribunal plainly noted the various reasons given by the applicant for the lack of documentation (CB 324 [28]) but ultimately found the lack of evidence concerning (CB 330 at [67]. That finding was open to it and does not constitute a jurisdictional error.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 175" id="cs12">I accept that this reasoning might suggest error of law. It would have been erroneous for the Tribunal to have characterised the applicant's fear of political persecution by Chinese authorities as not having a Convention nexus, due to a non-Convention motive of the instigator of such persecution (cf. Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs v Khawar [2002] HCA 48 ; (2002) 210 CLR 1 at [30] - [31] , discussed by Madgwick J in SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 at [37] - [41] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 230" id="cs13">Counsel for the Applicant, Mr Reynolds, submitted that the Tribunal did not refer to or explain why the IELTS certificate submitted by the Applicant did not satisfy item 572.223(2)(a)(i) of Schedule 5A. He submitted that if by its finding the Tribunal meant that the Applicant did not submit evidence of an IELTS test at all, then it engaged in jurisdictional error by failing to take into account a relevant consideration. He submitted that the words used by the Tribunal and the absence of any "active intellectual process" mean that the Court should infer that the document was not considered at all, which amounts to jurisdictional error (see NAJT v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [12] at [212]-[213]; see also SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [13] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 113" id="cs14"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1489" id="cs15">5 As to the dislocation to the court and the efficient use of judicial resources, I express the same concerns Justice Madgwick did in SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 at [68] . However, like his Honour, I consider that the interests of justice in allowing the appellant to pursue this appeal outweigh those considerations. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 960" id="cs16">The Tribunal did not suggest that the applicant would have to live "discreetly" in other parts of India (see SZATV at [32] per Gummow, Hayne and Crennan JJ); rather, it found that the applicant could freely express his political opinion in other parts of India. The Tribunal did consider whether as a matter of practical reality it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate: see SZAIX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 3 per Magwick J at [63]; SZIED v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1347 per Moore J. The Tribunal considered the applicant's business, the languages he spoke, his levels of education and his ability to live and work in other countries. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 2050" id="cs17">35 The appellant's third and final submission was that in considering relocation the Tribunal member failed to consider the appellant's symptoms of post-traumatic stress and the difficulties he would experience in terms of relocation in view of those symptoms. I was referred to NAIZ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 37 and SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Anor [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1382" id="cs18">13. In support of the contention that a failure to consider an aspect of the applicant's claims leads to jurisdictional error, Mr Turner relied on Htun v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802 at [42] and SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 (" SZAIX ") at [45] and [51].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 965" id="cs19">However, I note that subsequently, in SZGPZ v Minister for Immigration Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 683 at [25] - [26] , Collier J. followed Applicant A2 of 2002 , Applicant M29 and Applicant M211 of 2003 , rather than Applicants M160/2003 . 82. I further note that there are some decisions of this Court, (including two which the applicant has relied upon): NAGG , SZHEH at [36]-[41] and SZEEF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FMCA 661 (relying on Gararth v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 316) where the explanation of pursuing a "s.417 request" was found to be acceptable in explaining delay. 83. While each of the circumstances in each of those cases can, in my view, be distinguished from the circumstances before the Court now, to the extent that these cases appear to take a different view to what was set out in M211 of 2003 , with respect, I take the view that M211 of 2003 is binding on this Court and plainly should be followed. Even further, it found that he could reasonably relocate away from East Java if he feared harm there as claimed from "local people". 28. In written submissions filed subsequent to the hearing on 8 March 2007, the applicant made reference to SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 (" SZAIX" ). Mr. Anthony sought to draw a parallel between what was found in the circumstances relevant to that case, and what was subsequently found with the circumstances before the Court now. I do not agree, given what I have already set out above, that the applicant's claim to membership of a particular social group was expressly articulated before the Tribunal.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 802" id="cs20">21

As the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal are relevant to decide whether leave to appeal should be granted (see VUAX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 158 at [46] - [48]), it is appropriate first to address the proposed grounds of appeal to assess their merits. Realistically, as counsel for the first respondent acknowledged, if those grounds of appeal are likely to result in success on the appeal and the quashing of the decision of the Tribunal, given the significant implications to the appellant of the present decision of the Tribunal which would have him return to Bangladesh, there would be strong reason to allow the proposed grounds of appeal to be pursued: cf SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 at [66] ; NAJT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 134 ; (2005) 147 FCR 51.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 643" id="cs21">Finally, there is nothing in the applicant's evidence that would indicate that she was maintaining she had any particular problems because she was an Iraqi woman as opposed to just a woman in Syria. The Tribunal, whilst having a duty to consider any formulation of a claim that can be extracted from the available evidence (see Htun v Minister for Immigration [2001] FCA 1802 ; (2001) 194 ALR 244 at [7] per Merkel J, and at [42] per Allsop J) is not obliged to make findings in relation to claims upon which no evidence whatsoever has been advanced. In SZAIX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 3 , Madgwick J determined that the Tribunal had a duty to consider any formulation of a claim that is either " clearly and expressly so asserted " (at [50]), or a claim that "' clearly arises' on the material before a decision-maker " (at [52]). However, the Tribunal is not required to consider claims which do not arise from the materials before it. This was enunciated in NABE v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCAFC 263 ; (2004) 219 ALR 27 at [60] , citing the decision of Selway J in SGBB v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 709 ; (2003) 199 ALR 364:

 "His Honour, in our view, correctly stated the position when he said
(at [18]):

 ' The question, ultimately, is whether the case put by the appellant before the tribunal has sufficiently raised the relevant issue that the tribunal should have dealt with it .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 264" id="cs22">Therefore, if such a claim "'clearly arises' on the material before a decision-maker" (see SZAIX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 3 , NABE v Minister for Immigration ) then the Tribunal has a duty to consider it.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 636" id="cs23">The need under the Randhawa principles to address whether relocation is reasonable ' in a practical sense ' in the circumstances of the particular applicants, has recently been affirmed in NAIZ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCAFC 37 , particularly by Branson J at [22]-[23], and in a judgment of Madgwick J in SZAIX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 at [55] - [64].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 5" id="cs24">51 As such it appears that what may fairly be regarded as an integer of the claim was not considered. That, it is well established, amounts to a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction. Whatever its strengths or weaknesses, the appellant was entitled to have his claim fully considered. I adhere to what I said about NABE and other cases in SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448 at [50] - [52]. The considerations discussed there are generally relevant here. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1459" id="cs25">SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 referred to. Mr Turner referred the court to the decision in SZAIX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 at [56] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1317" id="cs26">SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 3 ; [2006] FCA 3 ; (2006) 150 FCR 448.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1256" id="cs27">The Applicant referred the Court to SZAIX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) FCA 3 , where Madgwick J found that a failure by the Tribunal to consider both psychological and physical difficulties in having regard to the practical realities facing an applicant amounted to jurisdictional error in that the Tribunal had failed to ask itself "the right questions" .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 309" id="cs28">It is undesirable for issues of significance to be left to be raised on appeal in the Federal Court [7] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 657">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 657">whether employment terminated for a prohibited reason or reasons that include a prohibited reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 657">whether termination occurred for reason of temporary absence from work because of illness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 657">whether termination occurred for reasons of participation in proceedings against employer</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 657" id="cs0">On 8 December 2008 the Bank applied to be released from the undertakings which it had given to the Court on 2 June 2008. The application was granted ( Yousif v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2008] FCA 1948) partly on the basis that Ms Yousif's evidence on 7 November 2008 indicated that she could no longer work for the Bank. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1317AA Disclosures qualifying for protection under this Part</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1317AB Disclosure that qualifies for protection not actionable etc.</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 7 Location of other interpretation provisions</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 203D Removal by members--public companies</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 249F Calling of general meetings by members</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 249H Amount of notice of meetings</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1322 Irregularities</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1332 Standard of proof</title>
<title id="l7">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">limitation of actions (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to actions founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">onus of proving fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.  practice and procedure (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to action founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">claim outside six year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">defence that action statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">no reply alleging fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">non-appearance of defendant at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">judgment for defendant on ground that no trust established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">finding of fraud on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">substantial identity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">goods of the same description</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">obstacle to use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">discretion not to remove trade mark even though non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">use " in good faith "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">no special facts or circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 934">evidence of internet search</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 934" id="cs0">30 Albeit only during the course of closing submissions by Lion Nathan , Gallo Winery supplemented its earlier contentions by placing reliance upon O 11, r 10 of the Federal Court Rules . That rule requires a matter to be specifically pleaded if it " might take the other party by surprise ": Dyno Wesfarmers Ltd v Orica Australia Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 554 , 46 IPR 386 ; Delta Metallics v Hawley-Jacobs t/as Fightboi Health  Fitness Centre [2006] FCA 334 at [8] per Kenny J. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l2">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l3">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 769">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 769">purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate dismissing application by reason of failure to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 769">objection taken to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 769">federal magistrate's judgment interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 769">appellant failed to appear at federal court hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 769">appeal dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 507">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 507">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 507">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 50">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 50">notice to produce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 50">application to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 50">requests too broad</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">whether applicable to judicial review of administrative decision. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">order dismissing proceedings as abuse of process on basis of res judicata and issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 466">whether final or interlocutory.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</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 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 660">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 660">application for an order under s 1322(4)(d) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) extending the time for a company to give notice of share placement in accordance with disclosure requirements of s 708a(5) and (6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">application to extend time to lodge supplementary bidder's statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">application to extend time to further vary bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">extent of court's powers to make orders under s 1322(4)(d) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">orders made as asked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">failure to comply with time limit in relation to placement of stapled securities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">failure to comply with time limit was inadvertent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">unlikely to be any substantial injustice to any party in dispensing with the time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">applied proviso that any party who later claims to have suffered a substantial injustice by reason of the orders has liberty to apply to discharge or vary them within a limited time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">offers of sale and sale of placement options</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">obligation of disclosure-failure to disclose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">acquisition of shares invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">seeking declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">each case to be decided on its merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">applicant acted honestly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">no substantial injustice to third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 40">declaratory relief granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1236">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1236">application for order under s 1322(4)(a) and (d) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) extending the time for the company to give notice of share placement in accordance with s 708a(5) and (6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1236">whether failure to issue notice due to inadvertence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1236">whether substantial injustice to any party</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 40" id="cs0">For example, s 1322(4)(a) has been applied to validate:
(a) the issue or transfer of shares in a company to a company it controls that were void under s 259C CA: Re Westpac Banking Corporation ; Re Commonwealth Bank of Australia ; Re MLC Ltd [2006] FCA 1357 ; (2006) 60 ACSR 187 ;

(b) the appointment of directors appointed in contravention of the companies' constitutions: NRMA Ltd v Gould ; Jordan v Avram ;

(c) takeover offers that lapsed by operation of the CA where the bidder attempted to extend the offer period with non-conforming notices of extension: Primelife Corporation Ltd v Aevum Ltd ; Re Centennial Coal Co Ltd [2006] NSWSC 62 ; (2006) 226 ALR 341 ;

(d) the issue of options that were void for non-compliance with s 723(3): Re Golden Gate Petroleum Ltd [2004] FCA 1119 ; (2004) 50 ACSR 659 ;

(e) offers of sale and sale of securities made in contravention of s 707(3) where there was non-compliance with s 708A(5)(e): Re Charter Hall Ltd ; Diversified, in the matter of Diversified United Investment Limited [2008] FCA 720 ; Re Chameleon Mining NL [2009] NSWSC 660 ; Re RCR Tomlinson [2009] FCA 1130. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1236" id="cs1">Generally speaking, apart from the merger described in [4] the circumstances and reasoning in this application are very similar to those in which I granted similar relief earlier this month in RCR Tomlinson Ltd (ACN 008 898 486); In the matter of RCR Tomlinson Ltd (ACN 008 898 486) [2009] FCA 1130 (6 October 2009) </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 111AS Exemptions by regulations</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 111AT Exemptions by ASIC</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 340 Exemption orders--companies, registered schemes and disclosing entities</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 341 Exemption orders--class orders for companies, registered schemes and disclosing entities</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 674 Continuous disclosure--listed disclosing entity bound by a disclosure requirement in market listing rules</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 708 Offers that do not need disclosure</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 708A Sale offers that do not need disclosure</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1322 Irregularities</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>