Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">non-appearance by applicant in the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">judicial review application struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">whether court had jurisdiction to entertain application for leave to appeal  held : court had jurisdiction to entertain application  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">oaths and affirmations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">form of oath for adherent to sikh faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">whether impractical to administer any such oath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 217">evidence act 1995 (cth) ss 21 , 23 and 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">submissions by video link</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">dismissal of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">interlocutory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">need for leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">grounds of appeal not properly drafted  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">no appellable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">no application to set aside interlocutory decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">leave refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">no prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 568">notice of appeal incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 429">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 429">objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 429">interlocutory orders purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 429">dismissal of application due to failure to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 429">application refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 769">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 769">purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate dismissing application by reason of failure to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 769">objection taken to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 769">federal magistrate's judgment interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 769">appellant failed to appear at federal court hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 769">appeal dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 768">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 768">purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate dismissing application by reason of failure to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 768">objection taken to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 768">federal magistrate's judgment interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 768">appellant failed to appear at federal court hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 768">appeal dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 767">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 767">purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate dismissing application by reason of failure to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 767">objection taken to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 767">federal magistrate's judgment interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 767">appellant failed to appear at federal court hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 767">appeal dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1426">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1426">appeal rendered nugatory as federal magistrate's decision the subject of this appeal was subsequently set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1426">whether costs should follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">dismissal by federal magistrate of application due to failure to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">whether federal court not competent to hear appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">whether judgment of federal magistrate of an interlocutory nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">whether leave of court required to appeal federal magistrate's judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">failure to seek leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">failure to comply with directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 966">failure to attend hearing</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 217" id="cs0">The Minister drew attention, in submissions, to a question as to whether the proceeding was one within jurisdiction. Attention was directed to the following passage in MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 where Young J at [9] stated:

 The appropriate course for the applicant to adopt would have been to apply to have the decision of O'Dwyer FM set aside pursuant to r 16.05(2), rather than appealing in this court. It has been doubted, in any event, whether this Court can entertain an appeal for a decision to dismiss an application for want of appearance: see the judgments of Sundberg J in MZWIK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185 and VOAQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 568" id="cs1">When exercising the discretion to grant or refuse leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision in the present proceeding, a further matter relevant to the exercise of that discretion is the right conferred by Rule 16.05 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 . When considering an application for leave to appeal in circumstances where a proceeding had likewise been struck out for want of attendance, Young J in MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 said:

 [9] The appropriate course for the applicant to adopt would have been to apply to have the decision of O'Dwyer FM set aside pursuant to r 16.05(2), rather than appealing in this Court. It has been doubted, in any event, whether this Court can entertain an appeal from a decision to dismiss an application for want of appearance: see the judgments of Sundberg J in MZWIK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185 (" MZWIK ") and VOAQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505.

 The applicant in that case had also failed to appear before the Federal Court. Rather than dismissing the proceeding before the Federal Court pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb)(ii) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), Young J went on to consider whether there was sufficient merit to warrant the grant of leave. Leave was refused. This was the course also followed by Ryan J in MZXAU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1558. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1323" id="cs2">24 As this is an application for leave to appeal from the refusal of the Federal Magistrates Court to reinstate the application for judicial review, the applicant has in fact taken the course indicated by Young J as appropriate in those circumstances in MZWXC v The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172. His Honour there said, at [9];
 'The appropriate course for the applicant to adopt would have been to apply to have the decision of O'Dwyer FM set aside pursuant to r 16.05(2), rather than appealing in this Court. It has been doubted, in any event, whether this Court can entertain an appeal from a decision to dismiss an application for want of appearance: see the judgments of Sundberg J in MZWIK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185 ("MZWIK") and VOAQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 729" id="cs3">12 As is apparent from what I have said, I have taken the course I adopted in MZWIK v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185 (see also MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 at [9] and MZXME v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 767) , and instead of requiring the applicant to take the proper course, have considered whether there is sufficient merit in his case to justify the grant of leave to appeal. Plainly there is not.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 429" id="cs4">3 The first respondent's submissions have considerable force. At least three judges of this Court have expressed doubt as to whether this Court can entertain an appeal from a decision to dismiss an application because of the non attendance of the applicant, at least in the first instance: see MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 at [9] per Young J, MZWIK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185 at [3] and VOAQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505 at [10] per Sundberg J, and MZWFV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 923 per North J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1110" id="cs5">

14 It is clear that, in the circumstances of this case, an application could have been made and, indeed, could still be made, under sub-rule (2)(a) or (c) of that rule. Accordingly, I agree with the observations of Young J in MZWXC v the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 where his Honour said at [9];

 'The appropriate course for the applicant to adopt would have been to apply to have the decision of O'Dwyer FM set aside pursuant to r 16.05(2), rather than appealing in this Court. It has been doubted, in any event, whether this Court can entertain an appeal from a decision to dismiss an application for want of appearance: see the judgments of Sundberg J in MZWIK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185 (" MZWIK ") and VOAQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 769" id="cs6">7 Having regard to the history of this matter, I am not persuaded that I should adjourn this proceeding. The objection to competency is plainly well taken. A decision to dismiss an application by reason of the absence of the applicant is a decision of an interlocutory nature. Pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court cannot be brought from such a decision without leave. See generally NACA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 659 at [15] per Hely J; MZWQH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1491 at [26] per Kenny J; and MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 at [9] per Young J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 768" id="cs7">7 Having regard to the history of this matter, I am not persuaded that I should adjourn this proceeding. The objection to competency is plainly well taken. A decision to dismiss an application by reason of the absence of the applicant is a decision of an interlocutory nature. Pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court cannot be brought from such a decision without leave. See generally NACA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 659 at [15] per Hely J; MZWQH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1491 at [26] per Kenny J; and MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 at [9] per Young J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 767" id="cs8">8 The objection to competency is plainly well taken. A decision to dismiss an application by reason of the absence of the applicant is a decision of an interlocutory nature. Pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court cannot be brought from such a decision without leave. See generally NACA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 659 at [15] per Hely J; MZWQH v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1491 at [26] per Kenny J; and MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 at [9] per Young J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1558" id="cs9">

16 It is clear that, in the circumstances of this case, an application could have been made, and, indeed, could still be made under subrule (2) (a) or (c) of that rule. In these circumstances, I agree with respect with the observations of Young J in MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) FCA 172 where his Honour said, at [9];

 'The appropriate course for the applicant to adopt would have been to apply to have the decision of O'Dwyer FM set aside pursuant to r 16.05(2), rather than appealing in this Court. It has been doubted, in any event, whether this Court can entertain an appeal from a decision to dismiss an application for want of appearance: see the judgments of Sundberg J in MZWIK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185 (" MZWIK ") and VOAQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1505. ' </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1426" id="cs10">9 In summary, the respondent has submitted:

• Where an appeal arises from a decision which has now been set aside, the appeal should be dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal. • The appropriate way to proceed in relation to decisions in the Federal Magistrates Court under r 13.10 is to make an application to set aside the decision under r 16.05. The appellant eventually did this and was successful in having the decision set aside. This approach has been endorsed in a number of cases including MZWXC v MIMIA [2006] FCA 172 and MLGXAL v MIMIA [2006] FCA 966. • The appeal in this matter was always misconceived as to the proper course to proceed, and incompetent as no application for leave to appeal was filed. • The decision of Jarrett FM on the substantive hearing has no relevance to this appeal. Further, Ms Wheatley for the respondent submitted in Court this morning that costs in this appeal bear no relevance to the new matter before Jarrett FM.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 966" id="cs11">By notice filed on 17 March 2006, the respondent Minister objects to the competency of this Court to hear this appeal. The respondent contends that the judgment of Riethmuller FM is an interlocutory judgment and, pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), an appeal cannot be brought from a judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court that is interlocutory unless leave is given. See MZWXC v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 172 (" MZWXC "). Pursuant to O 52 r 5 of the Federal Court Rules , such leave must be sought within 21 days of the pronouncement of the interlocutory judgment. No such leave has been sought. Nor has any application been made for an extension of time within which to bring an application for leave to appeal. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 16.05 Setting aside</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 646">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 646">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 646">whether error in finding employer applied duress to employee in connection with an australian workplace agreement  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 646">proper application of briginshaw principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 646">isn't there something in the evidence act about this? practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 646">adequate reasons for judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breaches of three awards</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breaches of several terms of each award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breaches in relation to several employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">after application of course of conduct provision, 22 contraventions, falling into 11 categories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">whether aggregate of penalties imposed by magistrate excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">application of totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">admitted contraventions of transport workers award 1998</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">underpayment of wages to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">where multiple breaches of award arose out of single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">relevant considerations in determining level of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">penalty determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">stoppage of work because of death of employee on unrelated site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">claim by union for employees to be paid for period of stoppage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">industrial action in support of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether claim reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">admitted breaches of statutory prohibition on payment for period of industrial action and on claiming payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">penalty agreed to by employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">appropriate penalty for breach by union. workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">union claim that numerous employees should be paid for single period of industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">employees paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether one breach or multiple breaches of statute. penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">contravention of statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">agreement between applicant and employer on amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">seriousness of breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">objects of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">individual and general deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">totality principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">freedom of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">prejudicial alteration of position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">prohibited reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">entitlement to benefit of industrial instruments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether prejudicial alteration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether ascertainable class of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">certified agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">obligation to consult</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether breach of certified agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">validity of certified agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 18">whether manifestly excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">markarian v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">drug offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">appellant acted as driver for heroin dealer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">appellant pleaded guilty and asked that four other offences be taken into account by sentencing judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether court of criminal appeal adopted impermissible approach to sentencing by means of staged approach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether staged approach to be preferred to instinctive synthesis of sentencer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">relevance of maximum available sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">relevance of quantity of drug.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">prosecution appeal against sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">court of criminal appeal increased sentence from 2 years and 6 months to 8 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether court of criminal appeal was wrong to find that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether re-sentencing discretion miscarried.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">re-sentencing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">further offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">additional discrete sentence added to head sentence for further offences disclosed by offender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether such approach a breach of totality principle.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">failure by trial judge and court of criminal appeal to consider an obligatory requirement of sentencing statute in determining appellant's sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether sentencing discretion of trial judge and court of criminal appeal miscarried because of such omission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">appeal from decision of federal magistrate summarily dismissing application claiming unlawful discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">principles relating to summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">where application said to lack merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">application need only disclose a reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">court should not consider whether the application will ultimately succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">approach where litigant unrepresented. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">philosophy underlying proceedings in federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">absence of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">function of pleadings generally.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">purvis v new south wales (department of education and training)  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">suspension and subsequent exclusion from school of pupil who repeatedly assaulted teachers and other pupils</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">where pupil's behaviour a consequence of brain damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether pupil discriminated against on the ground of disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">meaning of "disability"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether obligation to provide reasonable accommodation or make reasonable adjustments for persons with a disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether treatment of pupil was less favourable than treatment that would be given to a person without the disability in "circumstances that are the same or are not materially different"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether comparator is a person who does not engage in violent behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether pupil received less favourable treatment "because of" his disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">disability discrimination act 1992 (cth), s 5(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">dinsdale v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">sentencing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">crown appeals against sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">circumstances in which court of criminal appeal should allow appeal against sentence and substitute its own sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">necessity to find and identify error before allowing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">whether failure to do so in reasons of court of criminal appeal.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">sentencing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">crown appeals against sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">circumstances in which judicial discretion to suspend sentence should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 54">whether power to suspend sentence is confined by reference wholly, mainly or specially to the effect on rehabilitation of the offender.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">interpretation of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">provision fixing minimum rate of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">meaning of "minimum rate of work"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">meat processing works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">extent of employer's right to determine rate of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">alleged breach of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">whether breach established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">principles of construction of industrial awards.  master and servant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">contract of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">employee refused to work unless in accordance with his interpretation of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">whether employee entitled to wages for days he did no work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1989] FCA 409">whether situation modified by the award.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">manslaughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">diminished responsibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">protection of community</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">preventive detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">previous criminal history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">relevance to sentencing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">exclusive distribution agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">statements preceding contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether promissory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">statement that distributor would devote best efforts to distribute products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether warranty or mere representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">term implied by statute that distributor would "use best efforts" to promote products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether further term implied that distributor not to do anything inimical to market for products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">distributor developing own capacity to manufacture principal's products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">orders for principal's products deferred to be met with distributor's products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether breach of best efforts term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">uniform commercial code (u.s.), s. 2-306(2).  trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">distributorship agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether fiduciary relationship between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">importation of fiduciary duties into commercial transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">relevance of terms of contract to existence of fiduciary relationship.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">frustration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract to carry out excavations for rail authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">completion required by certain date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contractor working three shifts seven days per week</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">injunction granted to third party restraining contractor from working at certain times</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether implied term of contract that authority would grant reasonable extension of time and indemnify contractor against additional costs occasioned by grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether injunction frustrated contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">extrinsic evidence of intention.  arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">jurisdiction to entertain claim that contract frustrated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">power to award interest on award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">compound interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 94(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">application in a case for summary or default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">respondents out of time filing defence and affidavits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">insufficient explanation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">insufficient evidence of progress of preparation of affidavits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">whether respondents have no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">interests of justice in delivering final judgment at this stage of the proceedings.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">self-represented litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">no professional costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">fee waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 908">form of costs order to reflect court's disapprobation of respondents' non-compliance and conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 479">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 479">sex discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 479">it is sufficient if the applicant's discriminatory characteristic was "a reason" for discriminatory conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 479">discriminatory characteristic need not be the "real reason" or the "only reason" for the conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">sex discrimination act 1984 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">interim applications. application to strike out part of further amended points of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether points of claim disclose reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">embarrassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether failure to plead material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether striking-out appropriate in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">pleadings in proceedings in the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether leave to replead.application to consolidate or hear together matters instituted by two former employees of the first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether in the interests of justice to do so. application for separate determination of questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether just and convenient.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">application to summarily dismiss proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">principles.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">application to transfer proceedings to the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">principles.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to alleged representations in native title and aboriginal heritage matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">whether allegations made "in trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">injunction sought to restrain respondents in respect of native title and aboriginal heritage matters.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">application to strike out statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">principles applied to pleadings in proceedings in federal magistrates court.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">franchise agreements.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">whether duty of good faith an implied term of the contract.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">whether negligent misrepresentations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 7">whether reliance on misrepresentations pleaded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">application to substitute statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">where no affidavit filed in support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">whether affidavit necessary where statement of claim filed.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">application to strike out substituted statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">purpose and requirements of pleadings in federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">rules and principles governing strike out application.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">where parts of substituted statement of claim struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">whether leave to re-plead ought be granted.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1288">misleading and deceptive conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 959">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 959">sex discrimination act 1984</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 959">interim application.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 959">whether court has power to "dismiss" parts of points of claim under rule 13.10 of the federal magistrates court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 959">application of order 11 rule 16 of the federal court rules to points of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 959">whether amendment of points of claim is appropriate where pleadings at a high level of generality.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 957">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 957">sex discrimination act 1984</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 957">interim application.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 957">whether court has power to "dismiss" parts of points of claim under rule 13.10 of the federal magistrates court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 957">application of order 11 rule 16 of the federal court rules to points of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 957">application for summary dismissal of application or various claims for relief in relation to particular respondents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">consideration of factors relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">deliberate refusal to deal with inquiries or complaints by persons seeking compliance with an industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">ongoing course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">path of deliberate resistance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">prior contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">no contrition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">no co-operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 746">need for general and specific deterrence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">hearing disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">alleged less favourable treatment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">alleged harassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">playing of radio in the workplace</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">leave to visit mother</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">exclusion from workplace activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">speaking across room</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">performance review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 640">training session.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 255">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 255">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 255">sale and purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 255">entry into licence agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 255">alleged franchise agreement.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 255">application to strike out statement of claim.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">alleged breach of australian workplace agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">recreational leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">meaning of "calendar days paid recreational leave"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">meaning of "non-accrual of days off for any rostered-on days not worked".  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">alleged breach of australian workplace agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">public holidays</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">salary aggregated to include payment for public holidays</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">whether entitled to take public holidays or be paid an additional amount.  interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">principles applicable to interpretation of australian workplace agreement.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">whether applicant has standing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 188">whether applicant established entitlement under eligibility rules to represent employee.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 908" id="cs0">Ms Naroth is concerned that the respondents' conduct will be productive of and result in delay and protraction of the proceedings if the Court agrees to further extend time for compliance with the filing of Court documents by the respondents. The respondents did, however, file, on 10 November 2010, a detailed points of defence and cross-claim running to some 10 pages and 83 paragraphs, which traverses, in various fashions, all of the allegations which are made in the points of claim. In parts it might lack particularisation, but that is not unusual in this Court, and in this Court it is not unusual for affidavits to be required to be filed to provide the required further particulars. [6] That approach, does not assist where there is also a failure to file the affidavits, and as already noted, the respondents in this case failed to file the affidavits ordered by the Court by the due date of 8 November 2010. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 479" id="cs1">The applicant will have made out her allegation of sex discrimination if she proves that the relevant conduct, namely her dismissal, amounted to treatment which was less favourable than a male would have received in circumstances which were the same or not materially different. It is necessary for the applicant to show that she was treated less favourably than a man would have been and that this was because of her sex: Purvis v New South Wales [2003] HCA 62 ; [2003] HCA 62 ; (2003) 217 CLR 92 ; Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd v Iliff [2008] FCA 702 ; (2008) 173 IR 378. It will be sufficient if the relevant discriminatory characteristic, namely her sex, was "a reason" for the alleged conduct; it need not have been the "real reason" or the "only reason" for the conduct: Sterling Commerce v Iliff at 393 [48]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 457" id="cs2">As his Honour stated at [14], the general rules concerning pleadings should be considered having regard to the objects of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) and Rules and modern case management techniques. Under s.3 of the Federal Magistrates Act the objects of this court are to enable it to " operate as informally as possible in the exercise of judicial power " and " to use streamline procedures " (see s.3). The criticisms levelled by the respondents at the latest Points of Claim must be considered in light of such observations (see McKellar at [32]) and the need to exercise the discretion with caution (see Buckingham v KSN Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] 177 IR 427 ; [2008] FMCA 546 , Rana v University of South Australia (2004) 136 FCR 344 ; [2004] FCA 559 , Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd v Iliff (2008) 173 IR 378 ; [2008] FCA 702 and the discussion in Wylie v McCann at [29] --- [32]). As indicated above, the respondents' concern is with the pleading of agency between McCanns and Mr Brown and the basis of the claim that (by reason of such agency) McCanns is liable for the actions of Mr Brown that are said to constitute victimisation. Mr Newall raised cogent specific concerns about the conclusionary nature of those parts of the latest Points of Claim that referred to or relied on assertions of agency.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 5" id="cs3">[30] Balding IR at 26 per Lucev FM; FMCA at para.32 per Lucev FM. [31] Balding IR at 26 per Lucev FM; FMCA at para.32 per Lucev FM. See also Buckingham v KSN Engineering Pty Ltd [2008] FMCA 546 ; (2008) 177 IR 427 at 432-433 per Lucev FM; [2008] FMCA 546 at paras.15-21 per Lucev FM; Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd v Iliff [2008] FCA 702 ; (2008) 173 IR 378 at 387-388 per Gordon J; [2008] FCA 702 at paras.21-23 per Gordon J (" Iliff "). [32] Affidavit of Gene Smith, sworn 12 March 2009, paras.3-7 ("Native Title Claim"). [33] See Affidavit of Diana Robinson, sworn 23 March 2009, para.9.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 7" id="cs4">The Federal Court dealt with the issue and nature of pleadings required in this Court in Sterling Commerce v Iliff. [22] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1288" id="cs5">The Federal Court further dealt with the issue and nature of pleadings required in this Court in Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd v Iliff. [24] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 959" id="cs6">While pleadings or points of claim may now be adopted in proceedings in this Court, there are still no specific provisions in the FMC Rules akin to Order 11 of the Federal Court Rules . In Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd v Iliff (2008) 173 IR 378 ; [2008] FCA 702 , Gordon J, on appeal from this court, referred to the remarks of Lander J in Rana at [34] in finding that the philosophy of the Federal Magistrates Act and the intention of the Attorney-General at the time of introduction of the Bill establishing this court could not be ignored. In considering a ground of appeal to the effect that a particular contention was not an issue raised on the pleadings, in evidence or in submissions Gordon J stated at [23]: It is true that a party to proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court must be put on notice of the case against it and have an opportunity to respond. ... It is a fundamental principle of justice that a Court must not determine an issue that is not raised by the pleadings, or in the evidence or submissions before it. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 957" id="cs7">While pleadings or points of claim may now be adopted in proceedings in this Court, there are still no specific provisions in the FMC Rules akin to Order 11 of the Federal Court Rules . In Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd v Iliff (2008) 173 IR 378 ; [2008] FCA 702 , Gordon J, on appeal from this court, referred to the remarks of Lander J in Rana at [34] in considering a ground of appeal to the effect that a particular contention was not an issue raised on the pleadings, in evidence or in submissions. His Honour stated that the philosophy of the Act and intention of the Attorney-General at the time of introduction of the Bill establishing this court could not be ignored, Gordon J observed at [23]: It is true that a party to proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Court must be put on notice of the case against it and have an opportunity to respond. ... It is a fundamental principle of justice that a Court must not determine an issue that is not raised by the pleadings, or in the evidence or submissions before it. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 746" id="cs8">In circumstances where there is: a serious and deliberate contravention, with consequences adverse to the employee affected by the contravention, and no evidence of contrition or of co-operation with regulatory authorities; a prior contravention for which a relatively substantial penalty was imposed and remains unpaid; conduct contrary to several objects of the WR Act , and a need for general and specific deterrence,
the Court does not consider it appropriate that there be a penalty imposed at the minimum of the generally indicated range, that is 85% of the maximum available penalty. It is however nevertheless the case that, although serious, this is not the worst imaginable type of case, [41] and although there is a prior contravention record, this is only a second contravention. Having regard to all the factors set out above, and on an overall consideration of the circumstances, the Court considers that the penalty ought to be 90% of the maximum, that is $29,700. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 640" id="cs9">The Court must determine whether there has been discrimination in contravention of the DD Act , and particularly whether Ms Mansell's hearing disability was a reason for the allegedly discriminatory conduct. [11] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 255" id="cs10">The Federal Court dealt with the issue and nature of pleadings required in this Court in Sterling Commerce v Iliff [11] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 188" id="cs11">[45] There was no application to strike out the statement of claim which is remarkable for its lack of particularisation. In this Court it is not unusual to have to discern the particulars of a claim from the affidavit evidence (even when a statement of claim has been filed) and to do so is entirely consistent with the Parliamentary intention which was to establish a Court that was relatively inexpensive, able to provide expeditious justice, and which proceeds without undue formality so as to be sure that proceedings are not protracted. See O'Neill v Medical Benefits Fund of Australia Ltd [2002] FCAFC 188 ; (2002) 122 FCR 455 at 462 per Carr, Moore and Marshall JJ; [2002] FCAFC 188 at para.16 per Carr, Moore and Marshall JJ; Rana v University of South Australia [2004] FCA 559 ; (2004) 136 FCR 344 at 349 per Lander J; [2004] FCA 559 at para.34 per Lander J; Sterling Commerce v Iliff (2008) 173 IR 378 at 387-388 per Gordon J; [2008] FCA 702 at paras.21-23 per Gordon J; Goodall v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 218 at para.21 per Lucev FM. [46] See definition of "Roster". Hence, at some point in time, Mr Sanderson-Miller will probably have to make up that single day.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l2">MAGISTRATES ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">extension of time for compliance with s 625(3)(c)(i) of the corporations act sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">most appropriate form of and basis for relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 318">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 318">takeover bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 318">application by bidder for specific performance of substantial shareholder's promise to sell into the bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 318">whether commencement of proceeding precluded by s 659b of corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 318">purpose and proper construction of s 659b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 318">takeovers panel's power to make a declaration of unacceptable circumstances in relation to "affairs of a company"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 318">whether conduct in relation to a contract of sale of shares by a substantial shareholder to a bidder relates to the affairs of the target company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">interlocutory application to restrain defendant from taking any further step in a proceeding/application in the takeovers panel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">interlocutory application for orders to dismiss or stay court proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">pre-emptive rights regime under company constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">takeover offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">whether it is within discretion of directors to refuse to register acceptance of shares for reason that may prevent a higher bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">where application made to takeovers panel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">whether same substratum of facts before takeovers panel and the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">whether declaration by the takeovers panel would render proceeding in court nugatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 717">role of the takeovers panel under the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">particular persons and bodies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">ombudsman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">immunity of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">where applicant for position in ombudsman's office appealed decision to appoint another person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">whether immunity extends to matters of internal administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">ombudsman act 1974 , s32 , s 35a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">government and related employees appeal tribunal act 1980 , s20  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">maxim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">generalia specialibus non derogant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">discussion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">purposive construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 339">interpretation act 1987 , s33   legislation cited:  fire brigades act 1909-1956: s46</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">criminal law (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">court of criminal appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">summary conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">aggravated assault</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">whether indictable offence or simple offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">criminal code (q.), ss. 3, 335*, 343*, 343a*, 344*, 345*, 659, 668d**, 673**</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 29">children's services act, 1965 (q.), s. 29 (7) (c)***.   * the relevant provisions of ss. 335, 343, 343a, 344 and 345 of the criminal code (q.) are set out at pp. 436-437, post.  ** sections 668d and 673 are set out at pp. 434-435, post.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1207">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1208">category: no</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1207" id="cs0">The Court has the power under s 1325A(2)(b)(i) , in these circumstances, to make orders of the kind which are sought by the plaintiff. The Court has in a number of recent cases, exercised that power in similar circumstances to those prevailing in this case. (See, Re Grain Corp Ltd [2008] FCA 996 ; Re McMahon Holdings Ltd [2008] FCA 1079 ; and Re Venturex Resources Ltd [2009] FCA 677 ; (2009) 177 FCR 391. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1208" id="cs1">The Court has the power under s 1325A(2)(b)(i) , in these circumstances, to make orders of the kind which are sought by the plaintiff. The Court has, in a number of recent cases, exercised that power in similar circumstances to those prevailing in this case. (See, Re Grain Corp Ltd [2008] FCA 996 ; Re McMahon Holdings Ltd [2008] FCA 1079 ; and Re Venturex Resources Ltd [2009] FCA 677 ; (2009) 177 FCR 391. ) </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 625 Conditional offers--general</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 652B Withdrawal of takeover offers with ASIC consent</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 659B Court proceedings before end of bid period</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 659C Court proceedings after end of bid period</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 672B Disclosure by member of relevant interests and instructions</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1071F Remedy for refusal to register transfer or transmission</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1325A Orders if contravention of Chapter 6, 6A, 6B or 6C</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">application by veteran for disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">claim for post-traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse arising out of operational service in vietnam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">veteran claimed to have witnessed incident in which crewmember drowned when attempting to escape from cockpit of aircraft that failed to land properly on board hmas melbourne</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">delegate of respondent rejected claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">appeal to administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">tribunal found that veteran had not witnessed incident as claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">tribunal therefore satisfied that incapacity did not arise from war-caused injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">tribunal did not strictly follow four-step process laid down in repatriation commission v deledio [1998] fca 391 ; (1998) 83 fcr 82 but went directly to fourth step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">whether tribunal's approach gave rise to appealable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">primary judge affirmed tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">appeal to full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">new hypothesis connecting veteran's conditions raised for first time during oral submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">whether tribunal required to consider hypothesis not raised by veteran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 23">whether material before tribunal points to or raises an hypothesis if it involves mere speculation or conjecture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">application for judicial review of decision of administrative appeals tribunal rejecting in part a claim for compensation under s.29 compensation (australian government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">distinction between "aggravation" and "acceleration" within the meaning of s.29(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">whether decision maker must consider acceleration independently of aggravation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">whether period of compensable incapacity following an acceleration of a pre-existing degenerative disease could be finite in some cases and open-ended in others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">whether tribunal's finding as to termination of compensable period lacked a proper foundation in the absence of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">onus of proof regarding date of termination of compensable period.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">profit arising from the sale of property acquired for purposes of profit-making by sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">acquisition of land by public authority from taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">evidence of taxpayer of purpose of acquisition not accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">onus of proof of purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 26 (a), 190 (b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">profit arising from sale of property acquired for the purpose of profit-making by sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">compensation paid upon compulsory acquisition of land exceeding purchase price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">evidence of taxpayer as to purpose of acquisition of property not accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">absence of other evidence of purpose of acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">income tax assessment act 1936-1969 (cth), ss.26 (a), 190 (b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">sufficiency of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">finding of pedestrian's body on roadway in circumstances indicating collision with vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">vehicle unidentified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">no eyewitnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">whether reasonably open to jury to find that death caused wholly or in part by negligence of driver of unidentified vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">action against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">admissibility in evidence as such of admission by conduct on part of driver of unidentified vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1956] HCA 25">motor car act 1951 (no. 5616) (vict.), s. 47 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">pensions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">whether overpayment of pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">means test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">casino records of gambling losses used by centrelink to infer income level</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">inference that can be drawn from circumstantial evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2011] AATA 91">decision under review affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 289">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 289">failure to include foreign source income in income tax returns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 289">whether fraud or evasion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 289">whether deposits into bank account satisfactorily explained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 289">whether onus of proof discharged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 289">whether penalties correctly imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 289">decisions under review set aside</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 91" id="cs0">In support of the Applicant's case, the Secretary has referred to observations made in several income tax cases concerning the inferences to be drawn from evidence as a result of asset betterment investigations: see L'Estrange v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1978) 78 ATC 4744 at 4764-6; Szajntop v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1993) 93 ATC 4307 at 4313; Vu v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 889 at [26] . However, those taxation cases are distinguishable on their facts and relevant circumstances and are of little assistance in this case. Also, they are made in the context of income tax legislation which impose onus of proof provisions not applicable under the Act. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 289" id="cs1">The respondent is also not required to establish a positive case as to the source of the funds in question ( Vu v Commissioner of Taxation 2006 ATC 4387 ; [2006] FCA 889 ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 345" id="cs2">51 Like in the case before me, the applicable legislation in Deledio was not silent on issues of proof. In relation to the first issue in this case with respect to onus of proof, it is clear in light of s 14ZZK(b)(i) TA Act that the taxpayer in this case bore the onus of proof that the amended assessment was excessive. The nature of the onus of proof in the context of this legislation has been recognised in numerous decisions, including McCormack v Commissioner of Taxation [1979] HCA 18 ; (1979) 143 CLR 284 (although McCormack was decided under predecessor legislation), Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Munro (1997) 97 ATC 5041 and Vu v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 889. Further, it is clear on the authorities that the taxpayer, in its application before the Tribunal, must prove its case affirmatively on the balance of probabilities: McCormack 143 CLR at 303 per Gibbs J, Munro 97 ATC 5041 , Vu v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 889 at [8] . 51 Like in the case before me, the applicable legislation in Deledio was not silent on issues of proof. In relation to the first issue in this case with respect to onus of proof, it is clear in light of s 14ZZK(b)(i) TA Act that the taxpayer in this case bore the onus of proof that the amended assessment was excessive. The nature of the onus of proof in the context of this legislation has been recognised in numerous decisions, including McCormack v Commissioner of Taxation [1979] HCA 18 ; (1979) 143 CLR 284 (although McCormack was decided under predecessor legislation), Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Munro (1997) 97 ATC 5041 and Vu v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 889. Further, it is clear on the authorities that the taxpayer, in its application before the Tribunal, must prove its case affirmatively on the balance of probabilities: McCormack 143 CLR at 303 per Gibbs J, Munro 97 ATC 5041 , Vu v Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 889 at [8] .</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">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l4">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 6 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l5">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 167 Default assessment</title>
<title id="l6">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l7">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l8">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZ Person may seek review of, or appeal against, Commissioner's decision</title>
<title id="l9">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZK Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">professional services review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">statutory scheme for examination of conduct to ascertain whether inappropriate practice involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">challenge to decisions of director and committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">whether director erred in referral to committee by failing to notify applicant he had taken evidence from two medical advisors into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">whether director erred by attaching samples of medical reports to his referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">whether committee erred by taking reports into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">application of procedural fairness procedures in context of staged statutory procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">whether committee erred by adopting alternative sampling methodology in decision-making process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">whether committee should have notified the applicant that an alternative methodology had been adopted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">application of judicial immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">whether advice given by statistician as to statistical validity of methodology is part of decision-making process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">whether statistician is agent of the committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 269">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">health insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">professional services review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">statutory scheme for examination of conduct to ascertain whether inappropriate practice involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">where committee considered services rendered or initiated by person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">where samples of services may be considered in accordance with determination or approved method</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">whether committee complied with determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">whether failure to comply rendered decision invalid.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">health insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">investigation by professional services review committee as to whether a medical practitioner has engaged in inappropriate practice in relation to the number of services rendered or initiated by him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">whether health insurance commission was entitled to make an investigative referral to the director of professional services review simply upon evidence that the appellant had rendered or initiated 80 or more services on more than 20 days in a 12 month period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">whether director failed to have regard to s 92 of the health insurance act in referring the appellant's conduct to an investigative committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">meaning of 'exceptional circumstances'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">whether considerations of practice management are relevant to the application of reg 11 of the health insurance (professional services review) regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 196">whether matter should be remitted to a different committee.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">medical practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">professional services review scheme under part vaa of the health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">validity of investigative referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">effect of reference in the investigative referral to additional material which was said not to limit the conduct referred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">whether conduct referred was sufficiently specified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">whether determining authority failed to take into account a relevant matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">whether determining authority's determination was tainted by wednesbury unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 453">whether investigative referral can be limited to conduct amounting to a prescribed pattern of services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">medical practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">professional services review scheme under pt vaa of the health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">effect of 1999 amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">investigative referral by health insurance commission ("commission") to director of professional services review ("director")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">adjudicative referral by director to professional services review committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">whether investigative referral can be made in reliance upon s 106ka(1) alone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">whether commission failed to take into account relevant considerations before making investigative referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">referred services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">length of referral period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">whether commission must refer to the director particulars of a practitioner's services over a full two-year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">whether two year period is merely an outer limit of the period for which particulars of services must be referred to and investigated by the director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">whether adjudicative referral can be made in reliance upon s 106ka(1) alone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">whether director failed to take into account relevant considerations before making adjudicative referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 14">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">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="cp8.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">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="cp9.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">admininstrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">failure to give effect to the representation or procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether applicant suffered practical unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether the decision maker took into account explanation given by medical practitioner for high level of servicing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether no evidence ground of review open in relation to adjudicative referral  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">judicial immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether evidence exposing the process by which the professional services review committee made its decision is admissible for the purposes of impugning the decision</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 987" id="cs0">87 In the case of Carrick v Health Insurance Commission [2007] FCA 984 Branson J considered the ambit of the proposition for which Kelly v Daniels was authority, and observed at [34]:
 I accept for present purposes that Kelly v Daniel [2004] FCAFC 14 ; 134 FCR 64 is authority for the proposition that, in making a decision under s 86(1), the Commission is bound to take into account the consideration, where applicable, that the conduct of the person under review has already been considered by the Commission and a decision communicated to the person that the conduct will not be further investigated. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 Applications for review of conduct related to making of decisions</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 7 Applications in respect of failures to make decisions</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 8 Jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l5">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 11 Manner of making applications</title>
<title id="l6">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l7">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 81 Definitions</title>
<title id="l8">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 82 Definitions of inappropriate practice</title>
<title id="l9">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 85 Deputy Directors of Professional Services Review</title>
<title id="l10">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 86 Chief Executive Medicare may request Director to review provision of services</title>
<title id="l11">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 87 Chief Executive Medicare must notify person of request</title>
<title id="l12">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 89B Power of Director to require the production of documents or the giving of information</title>
<title id="l13">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 91 Decision to take no further action</title>
<title id="l14">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 93 Referral to a Committee</title>
<title id="l15">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 95 Constitution of Committees</title>
<title id="l16">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 103 Rights of persons under review at hearings</title>
<title id="l17">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106H Committee findings, scope of investigation etc.</title>
<title id="l18">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106K Committee may have regard to samples of services</title>
<title id="l19">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106Q The Determining Authority</title>
<title id="l20">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l21">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW AND OTHER MATTERS) ACT 2002 NO. 130, 2002 </title>
<title id="l22">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW AND OTHER MATTERS) ACT 2002 No. 130, 2002 - SECT 3 Schedule(s)</title>
<title id="l23">HEALTH INSURANCE (1998-99 GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES TABLE) REGULATIONS 1998 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>