Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">where union liable as an accessory under s 76(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">relevant factors in determining level of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">whether union's conduct in relation to contraventions of ss 45e(3) and 45ea constitutes same conduct for the purposes of imposing penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">consideration of nature, extent and impact of contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">consideration of deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 11">penalty determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">contravention of s 10 of the petroleum retail marketing sites act 1980 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">parties present joint submissions on the appropriate pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">direction under federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) asking whether the court must consider whether the proposed amount is within the permissible range and, if so, impose the "agreed" penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">powers and responsibilities of court faced with joint submission on penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">rural press limited v australian competition and consumer commission  australian competition and consumer commission v rural press limited  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">exclusionary provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">arrangement between regional newspaper publishers providing that one would withdraw newspaper services from the prime circulation area of the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether provision had purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting supply of services to, or acquisition of services from, particular persons or classes of persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 4d, 45 (2)(a)(i), 45 (2)(b)(i).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">where regional newspaper publisher threatened to circulate new newspaper in prime circulation area of a second regional newspaper publisher, unless second publisher ceased circulation of its own newspaper in first publisher's prime circulation area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">where second publisher subsequently ceased circulation of newspaper in first publisher's prime circulation area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether an "arrangement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether arrangement had purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 45(2)(a)(ii) , 45 (2)(b)(ii).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">accessorial liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether officers of newspaper publisher were "involved in" publisher's contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether officers participated in or assented to contraventions with actual knowledge of essential elements constituting the contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 75b(1), 76 (1), 80 (1).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether publisher took advantage of market power in its prime circulation area in threatening to enter prime circulation area of second publisher</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 46(1).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">form of declarations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] n w frozen foods proprietary ltd v australian competition  consumer commission [1996] fca 1134 (20 december 1996)    trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalties under s.76 for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of agreement between a.c.c.c. and corporation on joint submissions proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">desirability of settlement of such cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalty cases not criminal prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of undertaking by corporation of a compliance programme agreed with the commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">difficulties in comparing penalties in other cases with that proposed for the instant case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">importance of the particular market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of identity of corporation to be penalised where it was a member of a group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of whether a corporation has previously contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">inappropriateness of diminishing the credit to be given a corporation for co-operation and admission of liability by reference to any costs saving it may achieve thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">reference to u.s. law conceding the u.s. federal trade commission "a special competence in formulating remedies"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">discussion of the question for the court where penalty is the subject of an agreed joint submission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">appeal from state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">special leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">criminal case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 35(2).  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">co-offenders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">disparity between sentences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">interference by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">relationship between sentence and minimum time after which offender eligible for parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">offenders probation and parole act 1980 (q.), s. 53(3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">alleged contraventions of ss 45(2)(a)(i) and (ii) and 45 (2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) and the victorian competition code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">respondents connected with supply of unshucked abalone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">price-fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">exclusionary provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">respondents admitted alleged contraventions  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">agreement reached on penalties to be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">factors relevant when fixing penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">principles governing agreed penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 1834">parity principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1873">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1873">alleged contravention of building and construction industry improvement act 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1873">agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1873">consideration of matters relevant to imposition of penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1546">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1546">admitted contravention of s 45e and s 45ea of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1546">statement of agreed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1546">undertakings accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1546">joint submissions as to relief including penalty</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1834" id="cs0">144 In Schneider Electric (Australia) Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2003] FCAFC 2 ; (2003) 127 FCR 170 at [57] Merkel J (with whom Black CJ and Sackville J relevantly agreed) accepted that the parity principle applies to pecuniary penalties imposed under s 76 of the TPA. His Honour referred to two earlier decisions of the Full Court in support of that proposition, namely NW Frozen Foods at 295, and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Ithaca Iceworks Pty Ltd (2002) ATPR |P41-851 at 44,539. See also Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v SIP Australia Pty Limited (2003) ATPR |P41-937 at [57]---[58] per Goldberg J; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd (No 4 ) (2006) ATPR |P42-101 at [71]---[74] per Goldberg J; and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IPM Operation and Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 144 at [11] per Tracey J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1873" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1546" id="cs2">6 I am satisfied that the proposed orders are appropriate, bearing in mind the general principles laid down in Minister for Industry, Tourism  Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72 , (2004) ATPR 41-993 , it referring with approval to NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [1996] FCA 1134 ; (1996) 71 FCR 285. I will not set out all of the authorities referred to by counsel. Particular reference is made to the decisions of Young J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v IPM Operation  Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1777 ; (2006) 157 FCR 162 , the decision of Tracey J on a separate penalty matter in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) v IPM Operation  Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No 3) [2007] FCA 144 , (2007) ATPR 42-151 ; and of the Full Court in Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing  Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) [2007] FCAFC 132. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">civil and criminal contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">fine for civil contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">daily fine for existing and continuing contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">anticipatory punishment for future default in complying with order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">sequestration order in execution of order imposing fines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 23 , 31 .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 961">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 961">appeal from sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 961">sequestration order set aside on appeal to full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 961">whether setting aside of sequestration order effective to end bankruptcy in absence of annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 928">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 928">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 928">statutory source of entitlement to interest incorrectly identified in bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 928">whether error was a failure to meet a requirement made essential by the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">bankruptcy act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">case stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">whether creditor's petition lapsed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">sequestration order thereon set aside by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">whether sequestration order a nullity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">whether act requires valid sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">consequences if petition does not lapse  bankruptcy act 1966 s.52  federal court of australia act 1976 ss.5 , 25  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">sequestration order made on the creditor's petition set aside by the high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">whether creditor's petition had lapsed pursuant to s 52(4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">stated case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss 33(1)(c) , 37 (1), 38, 52 (4)(5) and 154 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1984] FCA 345">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s 25(6). held (per curiam), that the making of a sequestration order on a creditor's petition within twelve months of the date of presentation of the petition will prevent a creditor's petition from lapsing under s 52(4) of the bankruptcy act 1966 even if that sequestration order is subsequently set aside as beyond power by order of a superior court of record. such setting aside does not mean that the sequestration order was a nullity but merely voidable. to hold otherwise would give debtors undesirable immunity in respect of a particular petition possibly with important consequences in respect of the commencement of the bankruptcy and the assets available for distribution to creditors.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">mrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">jurisdiction erroneously declined under time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">applicant unable to qualify on visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">whether futile to order a writ of mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">whether visa application was invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">whether tribunal could allow visa application to be withdrawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">right of applicant to access ministerial discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 865">relief granted by court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 865" id="cs0">The debate as to whether the reference to "application" includes reference to an invalid application has similarities in other areas, for example, in an entirely different context: Adams v Lambert [2006] FCA 623 at [10] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 52 Proceedings and order on creditor's petition</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 28 Form of judgment on appeal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 52 Interest on judgment</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">bodruddaza v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">availability of constitutional relief in the high court's original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">a delegate of the respondent cancelled the plaintiff's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) purported to place a time limit on applications to the high court exercising its original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">the plaintiff applied for relief outside this time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a applies to the plaintiff's application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">s 51(xxxix) of the constitution conferred on parliament power to regulate procedures for seeking relief under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">to what extent this power is limited by the constitutional purposes of s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">significance of s 75(v) in the federal scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) is valid.  certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">interrelationship with s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) validly regulated the authority of the high court to grant certiorari to the plaintiff.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">the plaintiff's visa was cancelled because of a failure to meet language skills qualifications in the migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether the decision to cancel the plaintiff's visa amounted to jurisdictional error.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">presumption that words in the singular include the plural</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">item 6a31 of the migration regulations 1994 (cth) fixed on what transpired "in a test"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether presumption vitiated by the text of item 6a31 of the migration regulations .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal affirming decision of delegate of first respondent minister to cancel applicant's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">where applicant citizen of new zealand holding special category visa in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">where applicant convicted of serious criminal offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">where minister cancelled applicant's visa pursuant to s 501(2) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">where applicant purported to appeal under s 44 of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">whether appeal under administrative appeals tribunal act competent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">whether power conferred by s 501(2) of migration act 1958 (cth) limited or supplanted by terms of s 200 and s 201 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">whether power to cancel visa exercised used for punitive purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">whether tribunal member failed to give proper consideration to relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">whether tribunal member took expectations of australian community into account.  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">appeal under s 44 of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">decision excluded from scope of s 44 even if in excess of jurisdiction or resulting from failure to exercise jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">s 501 of migration act 1958 (cth) not limited by s 200 and s 201</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">no evidence tribunal member exercised power for improper or punitive purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">tribunal member gave proper consideration to matters identified by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">tribunal member did take expectations of australian community into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 80">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1260">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1260">cancellation of business visa pursuant to s 134(1) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1260">finding by tribunal that the enterprise was not an 'eligible business' within the meaning of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1260">whether tribunal asked itself the right questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1260">whether tribunal found the enterprise was a 'business'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1260">whether tribunal looked to state of affairs of the enterprise as at the date of cancellation of the visa in determining whether it was an 'eligible business'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1260">held: tribunal overlooked the requirement to determine whether it was reasonable to believe the enterprise was resulting in one or more of the outcomes identified in the definition of 'eligible business' .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 170">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 170">applicant's spouse refused spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 170">whether administrative appeals tribunal incorrectly considered that places for spouse visas were "limited" by the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 170">whether there was a denial of procedural fairness where applicant not given notice of matters on which administrative appeals tribunal drew conclusions adverse to him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">whether the decision is a privative clause decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">whether the decision contained a jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">whether there was a failure to recognise the nature and the extent of the power exercised migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">business visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">secondary business visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">standard of proof required by 'would result' in s 135(5) statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">whether section 134 contains a residual discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">whether s 134 imposes a duty on the minister to exercise the power to cancel a visa practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 31">issue raised on appeal that was not raised before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 308">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 308">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 308">application refused on ground that refugees convention did not apply to the appellant by reasons of the operation of art 1f of the refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 308">where finding that appellant committed a war crime or crime against humanity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 308">whether necessary that there be a finding with respect to a specific incident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 308">duress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 308">whether appellant in a position to make the relevant moral choice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 474 , 476a and 477a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">judicial review of a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">jurisdiction of the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">scope and grounds of review   constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">s 39b and s 78b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth)   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">process by which child is absorbed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">purported cancellation of absorbed person visa on character grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">whether child absorbed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal identifies no error of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal only raises errors committed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 166" id="cs0">The decision sought to be attacked by the applicant is a decision of the Tribunal. It is a decision of an administrative character. It was made pursuant to the provisions of s 500(1)(b) of the Act and was thus a decision "... made under the Act ...". For the purposes of the Act, the decision of the Tribunal was clearly a privative clause decision (see s 5(1) and s 474(2) of the Act) or a purported privative clause decision. (See s 5(1) and s 5E of the Act. See also Shuster v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 215 ; (2008) 167 FCR 186 at [5] , [13], [20], [26] and [28]. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1263" id="cs1">7 Division 2 of Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides for the manner in which decisions may be reviewed by the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the High Court. Section 476 provides for the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court. Section 476(2)(a) and (d), it has recently been held, are not invalid because they oblige the High Court to exercise exclusively and without remitter the jurisdiction conferred by s 75(v) of the Constitution with respect to certain decisions of the Minister: MZXOT v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] HCA 28. Section 476A provides for the limited original jurisdiction to be entertained by this Court: eg, Assad v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1039 ; La Bara v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 785 at [3] ; Shuster v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 215 at [6]---[7] [2008] FCA 215 ; , 167 FCR 186 at 188. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is relevantly that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). That appellate jurisdiction may be exercised by a single Judge of this Court: s 25(1AA)(a). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 8 Jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l5">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 13 Headings, schedules, marginal notes, footnotes and endnotes</title>
<title id="l6">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l9">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 44 Extent of following Subdivisions</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 134 Cancellation of business visas</title>
<title id="l14">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l15">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l16">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l17">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 483 Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975</title>
<title id="l18">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 500 Review of decision</title>
<title id="l19">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l20">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l21">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 2001 NO. 134, 2001 </title>
<title id="l22">MIGRATION LITIGATION REFORM ACT 2005 NO. 137, 2005 </title>
<title id="l23">INTERPRETATION ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">agreement that applicants could operate restaurant using respondents' intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">whether agreement gave property rights or mere licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">relevance of subsequent conduct to existence of agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">whether licence terminable at will</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">whether licence repudiated  trademarks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">trade marks act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">registration in name of one applicant only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">whether applicants entitled to registration together with respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 74">unjustified threats</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2011] WASCA 19">easements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2011] WASCA 19">implied easements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2011] WASCA 19">equitable easements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2011] WASCA 19">nonderogation from grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2011] WASCA 19">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2011] WASCA 19">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2011] WASCA 19">torrens title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">injunction preventing the use of a trademark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">steps taken to avoid injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">whether it is appropriate to seek a further injunction or move for contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">further injunction granted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] WASCA 19" id="cs0">59 The easement which is implied by law from the conveyance or demise of real property by reference to the maxim of non-derogation is a legal interest under the general law: Parramore v Duggan (649). Because it is implied in the grant, it is not merely a covenant enforceable in equity: Cable v Bryant [1908] 1 Ch 259 , 264; Dabbs v Seaman [1925] HCA 26 ; (1925) 36 CLR 538 , 550 - 551; JLCS Pty Ltd v Loft City Steakhouse Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 867 [329 - [31]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 8" id="cs1">2 There was a subsequent action about the duration of the licence: JLCS Pty Ltd v Squires Loft City Steakhouse Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 867. When the original action was heard the Goldie Place restaurant was owned by Squires Loft City Steakhouse Pty Ltd (SLCS), a company whose directors were Harold and Saul. The company held the business in its capacity as trustee of the Squires Loft City Steakhouse Unit Trust. Subsequently, there was a change in both the directorship of SLCS, and in the beneficial ownership of the business. This, it was said, caused the licence to terminate. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">michael marks  ors v gio australia holdings limited  ors  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether analogous with damages in tort or contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">distinction between "expectation" and "reliance" loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether damage caused "by conduct of" defendant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">estate duty (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">shares in unlisted companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">valuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">majority and minority interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">restrictions on transfer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">estate duty assessment act 1914-1957 (cth), s. 16a*.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1019I Contents of offer document</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 200">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 200">representative proceedings under pt iva of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 200">application by respondent for order under s 33n(1) of the act that proceeding no longer continue as a representative proceeding under pt iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 200">criterion for membership of group that persons have entered a litigation funding agreement with particular funder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 200">construction of paras (a), (b), (c) and (d) of s 33n(1) discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 200">whether "policy" underlying pt iva can be identified and should be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 200">whether criterion for membership of group inconsistent with pt iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">court approval of settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">fairness and reasonableness of terms of settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">objections to settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">alternative outcomes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">independent assessment of reasonableness of legal fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 2008">exclusion of certain group members from settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 897">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 897">approval of settlement against one respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 897">where application unopposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 897">principles relevant to court approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 897">provision of adequate notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 897">whether proposed settlement is fair and reasonable and in the interests of group members as a whole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 897">confidentiality of settlement terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1388">darwalla milling co pty ltd  ors v f hoffman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1388">la roche ltd  ors (no 2) [2006] fca 1388</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">approval of settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">scheme for distribution of monies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">care to be exercised in drafting initial notice to members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">fair and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 277">scrutiny of payment to fund provider</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 277" id="cs0">Notice having been given, approval is now sought pursuant to s 33V and the " general power " conferred by s 33ZF. Section 33V provides as follows:

 Settlement and discontinuance --- representative proceeding
 (1) A representative proceeding may not be settled or discontinued without the approval of the Court. (2) If the Court gives such an approval, it may make such orders as are just with respect to the distribution of any money paid under a settlement or paid into the Court.

The purpose to be served by s 33V has been said to be " obvious ": Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chats House Investments Pty Ltd (1996) 71 FCR 250 at 258. Branson J there observed:

 The purpose intended to be served by s 33V(1) is obvious. It is appropriate for the court to be satisfied that any settlement or discontinuance of representative proceedings has been undertaken in the interests of the group members as a whole, and not just in the interests of the applicant and the respondent. In my view, s 33V proscribes not only complete settlement of proceedings without the approval of the court, but also settlement of claims against a joint respondent, or settlement of any substantive claim against a respondent.

These observations have since been oft-cited: eg, Fowler v Airservices Australia [2009] FCA 1189 (" Fowler v Airservices Australia ") at [20] per Bennett J; Haslam v Money for Living (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 897 at [17] per Gordon J. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 33V Settlement and discontinuance--representative proceeding</title>
<title id="l2">LONG SERVICE LEAVE (COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES) ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">foreign judgment in breach of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">when party should be ordered to vacate judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">discretionary factors practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">compromise of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">accord and satisfaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">enforcement of terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 934">summary procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">agreement for lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">landlord to deliver registrable lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">time for delivery not fixed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">failure to deliver within reasonable time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">whether repudiation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">notice requiring delivery within fourteen days in default lessee "reserves rights"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">failure to deliver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">rescission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">effectiveness of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">whether reasonable time allowed for compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1989] HCA 23">whether reservation of rights sufficient warning of intention to rescind.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">definition of "deed of assignment" for "benefit of creditors"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">little or no assets assigned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">declaring deed void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">"interests of creditors"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">major creditor not notified of meeting.  moneylenders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">queensland act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">procuration fee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">avoiding effect of illegality.  mortgage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">no express covenant to repay sum advanced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">implying covenant to repay.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">discretion to one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">effect in law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">merger of contractual terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1985] FCA 191">economic duress.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">stipulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">time not of the essence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">failure of purchaser to tender transfer to purchaser by specified date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">whether vendor thereby entitled to give notice to complete</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 28">whether vendor may give notice when purchaser in breach though not guilty of unreasonable delay.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">time for completion not stipulated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">condition making contract subject to purchaser's completing sale of other property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">character of condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">implied term that purchaser should complete sale of other property within reasonable time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">vendor's right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">whether dependent upon notice requiring purchaser to complete or fulfil condition.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1172" id="cs0">By my reasons of 5 May 2009 ( Worldwide Timber Traders Pty Ltd (ABN 93 009 384) v Brouwer (No 2) [2009] FCA 447) , I recorded the power of the Court to enforce settlement agreements. In those reasons I indicated that the only difficulty in enforcing the agreement which had been reached between the parties and which was admitted in open Court was in the terms of the draft deed presented on behalf of the applicant. It had been a term of the Settlement Agreement that the parties enter into a deed requiring the respondents to pay to the applicant the sum of $17,500. I ruled that there was an implicit term that the payment be made within a reasonable period of time of the execution of the Agreement. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1401">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1401">application for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1401">where applicant previously exercised all legal powers of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1401">proceedings an abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">dismissal by federal magistrates court of australia ('fmca') of application for judicial review of decision of refugee review tribunal as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether order of dismissal final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">extension of time required in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">tribunal's decision handed down on 16 july 1999, before fmca existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether 28-day time limit imposed by s 477(1a) of migration act 1958 (cth) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">history of provisions by which fmca given jurisdiction and legislative source of 28-day time limit discussed. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">dismissal by federal magistrates court of australia ('fmca') of application for judicial review of decision of refugee review tribunal as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether order of dismissal final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">extension of time required in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">tribunal's decision handed down on 16 july 1999, before fmca existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">whether 28-day time limit imposed by s 477(1a) of migration act 1958 (cth) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1785">history of provisions by which fmca given jurisdiction and legislative source of 28-day time limit discussed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 915">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 915">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 915">chinese applicant claiming political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 915">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 915">no arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 915">application dismissed at show-cause hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">permanent and temporary partner visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">bigamy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">de facto spouse relationship. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">application to file appeal out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">earlier dismissal of proceeding as incompetent is an interlocutory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">late service of submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">application for adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">no denial of procedural fairness in short adjournment only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">international law obligations not affecting statutory time limits.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 227">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 227">leave to commence proceedings against company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 227">transfer of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 227">whether proceeding should be transferred from western australia district registry to victoria district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 227">considerations include the interests of justice, efficiency and administration of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 227">similar proceedings in victoria district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 227">proceedings all arise from collapse of opes prime group companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">natural person applicant outside jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">no assets in jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">limited evidence as to financial position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">uncontested estimate as to respondents' costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">security ordered to point of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">transfer of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">proceedings commenced in perth registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">respondents in queensland but remote from brisbane</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">applicant represented by perth solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">respondents represented by queensland solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">no benefit in transferring proceeding at interlocutory stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 49">motion to transfer dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">transfer to another registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">proceedings concerning deeds of administration with docket judge in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">claims that companies subject to the deeds of company arrangement were not insolvent at the time those deeds were entered into and further claim for damages in an action for misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of contract filed in western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">preliminary interlocutory management and orders at western australia district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">whether proceedings should be transferred to victoria district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">significance of interrelationship between proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 39">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1160">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1160">joinder of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1160">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1160">amendment of application and statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1160">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">case management of claim for relief relating to franchise agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">application for change of venue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">parties conducting businesses in different states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">effect of submission to jurisdiction clause in franchise agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">onus of persuasion for change of venue not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">inadequate pleading of defence of corporate respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">struck out for embarrassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">refusal of future representation by managing director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">costs awarded for extensive interlocutory hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1131">directions for future preparation of proceedings.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1160" id="cs0">The events which are pleaded, as observed in Sartori v BM2008 Pty Ltd (ACN 005 762 685) [2009] FCA 467 ( Sartori No 1 ), pertain to circumstances originating so long ago that certain key participants in the events are no longer alive. The first alleged breach took place in 1981. Mr Sartori says that the Company, without notice to him and without first giving any notice in accordance with the requirements of reg 41, on or about 17 July 1981 or in the period shortly after, purported to resolve to issue and issued 12,000 B class shares in the Company. That issue, according to Mr Sartori, was void because the Company and its board failed to offer the shares to Mr Sartori and in every other respect failed to comply with the requirements of reg 41; was contrary to the interests of the members of the Company as a whole and was oppressive, unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against the other shareholders of the Company. It reduced the proportionate entitlement of other shareholders to payment of the dividend or to return of capital in the event of a winding up and deprived shareholders of the right to accept an offer of and to receive additional shares pursuant to reg 41. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1131" id="cs1">The parties' submissions directed my attention to both the expressed terms of considerations raised by r.8.01, and also general discretionary considerations in relation to matters of change of venue, for example, by reference to the recent discussion of McKerracher J in Sartori v BM2008 Pty Ltd (ACN 005 762 685) [2009] FCA 467 at [11] , and the judgment of Barnes FM in Lolliland Pty Ltd v Dollar Sweets Company Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 257. I do not propose to repeat their discussion, but have taken into account all the matters that they identify when considering the issue of venue. I shall return to that issue, after addressing other issues which might affect my consideration of it. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 48 Matters to be disregarded</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 232 Grounds for Court order</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 233 Orders the Court can make</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1400 Creation of equivalent rights and liabilities to those that existed before the commencement under carried over provisions of the old corporations legislation</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">action summarily dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">unreasonable to have subjected the respondents to the expenditure of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">where trust deed empowered trustee to determine whether receipts and outgoings were on revenue or capital account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">where trustee empowered but not obliged to determine the income of the trust estate to be equal to the amount of 'net income' referred to in s 95 of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">where trustee determined certain outgoings to be on revenue account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">where same outgoings disallowed as deductions for tax purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">where no distributable net income of the trust for trust law purposes but s 95 'net income' for tax purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">whether trustee liable to pay tax on the net income of the trust taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">objections and appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 164">whether objection set out fully and in detail the grounds on which taxpayer relied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">agreement to dispose of waste partly oral, partly in writing, partly implied from conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">whether owner-operator or subcontractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">warranty to execute memorandum of agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">whether contract repudiated by respondent's breach or applicant's financial circumstances  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">whether future profit recoverable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">what to do in absence of evidence  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">whether misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 585">reliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1172">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1172">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1172">substantive issues resolved by agreement and orders made by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1172">orders indicate which parties succeeded on particular issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1172">whether parties entitled to costs in respect of issues on which the party was successful   legislation: income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) ss 99a , 102um  income tax assessment act 1997 (cth) s 8-1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 485">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 485">taxation appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 485">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 485">whether special circumstances apply to taxation appeals in relation to the question of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 485">whether taxpayer's conduct prior to the commencement of the taxation appeal is a relevant consideration in respect of costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 173" id="cs0">Generally an order for costs follows the event, and is to be taxed on a party/party basis. However, if the substantive issues have not been determined by the Court, it will usually make no order as to the costs of the proceeding as there has been no hearing on the merits: L  A Maglio Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1365 at [22] - [24]. In Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6 ; (1997) 186 CLR 622 , McHugh J said at 625:

 If it appears that both parties have acted reasonably in commencing and defending the proceedings and the conduct of the parties continued to be reasonable until the litigation was settled or its further prosecution became futile, the proper exercise of the cost discretion will usually mean that the court will make no order as to the cost of the proceedings.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1172" id="cs1">Generally an order for costs follows the event, and is to be taxed on a party/party basis. However, if the substantive issues have not been before the Court it will usually make no order as to the costs of the proceeding as there has been no hearing on the merits: L  A Maglio Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1365 at [22] - [24]. In Gribbles Pathology Pty Ltd v Health Insurance Commission (1997) 80 FCR 284 Finkelstein J emphasised at 287 that:

 in the absence of a hearing on the merits it is difficult to see how any order, other than an order that each party bear its own costs, can be made except in special circumstances.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 485" id="cs2">Mr Vaughan for the Commissioner referred me to the case of Findlay v Commissioner of Taxation [2002] FCA 1074 ( Findlay ) and to the case of L  A Maglio Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1365 ; (2007) 67 ATR 302 ( Maglio ). Both of these cases demonstrate that in determining the question of costs in tax cases it is permissible for the Court to take into account the question of whether the successful taxpayer has conducted himself or herself in a way which has led to the commencement of litigation which could have been avoided or which has unnecessarily prolonged litigation. In Findlay , the successful taxpayer was deprived of his costs because of his conduct and in Maglio the successful taxpayer was deprived of part of its costs for the same reason. In my view, these cases are germane to the circumstances of this case. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 35" id="cs3">L  A Maglio Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1365 concerned taxation appeals by several taxpayers against appellable objection decisions. The appeals were compromised and were discontinued by consent, but the respondent sought costs of the appeals. Those costs were ordered in the respondent's favour, having regard to the appellants' conduct of the appeal over a lengthy period: see at [32]. The other decision referred to by counsel for the defendant is equally evidently inapplicable. Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 179 concerned the award of costs after the applicant's claim had been summarily dismissed. Costs were awarded on a solicitor and client basis against the applicant, having regard to the way the proceedings were conducted. In neither case was there the overlap of the application of O 23 of the Federal Court Rules . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1416" id="cs4">

51 Ordinarily where there has been no hearing on the merits and the parties no longer wish to proceed with the action, no orders as to costs will be made: L  A Maglio Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 1365 at [24] . This applies so long as the parties have continued to act reasonably in prosecuting or defending their application: Re Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin [1997] HCA 6 ; (1997) 186 CLR 622 per McHugh J at 624- 625. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 170 Amendment of assessments</title>
<title id="l4">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l5">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 529">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 529">consideration of an application for an order to strike out a further amended statement of claim and related orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 149">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 149">interlocutory decision of single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 149">guillotine order under o 35a r 3(1)(c) federal court rules dismissing proceedings in event of non-payment of taxed interlocutory costs by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 149">whether judge erred in exercise of discretion under o 35a r 3(1)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 149">whether possible impecuniosity of appellant precludes dismissal of proceedings in such circumstances held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 149">primary judge properly exercised discretion in o 35a r 3(1)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 149">justice between the parties is paramount</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">application to strike out statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">copyright in shoe patterns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">infringement by reproduction of pattern in process of manufacture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">whether cause of action disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">copyright documents lost or mislaid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">documents assigning title to copyright in dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 479">whether statement of claim embarrassing or an abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] FCA 674">(g) if a step in the manufacture of the goods has been carried out outside australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] FCA 674">whether the manufacturing and quality control procedures used in the manufacture of the goods are acceptable; and  (h) if the goods have been manufactured in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] FCA 674">whether the goods have been manufactured in accordance with part 4 ; and</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">dismissal of proceeding for want of compliance with court's pre-trial directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">types of case where order justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">circumstances where appellate court will interfere with primary exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">effect of "guillotine" order which came into effect whilst proceeding stood dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588FF Courts may make orders about voidable transactions</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">arrangements and reconstructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">companies in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">proposed compromise or arrangement with creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">meetings of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">format of meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">where several voting constituencies assembled together but each later had opportunity for separate discussion and voted separately</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">motions moved by chairman of meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">whether irregular</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">voting at meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">whether requirement for decision "on the voices" satisfied by vote by show of hands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">taking of poll "before or on the declaration of the result of the voices"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">whether preliminary vote "on the voices" thereby made necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">where court invited to approve scheme as altered by resolution of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">whether creditors having claims subject to potential reduction by operation of scheme constitute class distinct from creditors whose claims are not subject to such potential reduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 485">whether non-disclosure in explanatory statement of potential reduction of some claims was material non-disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 897">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 897">arrangements and reconstructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 897">scheme of arrangement between company and members linked with arrangement affecting managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 897">determination of classes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 897">observations on telephone communication with members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 897">sequence of meetings discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 897">appropriateness of case for judicial advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1126">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1126">court's approval of compromise or arrangement between company and its creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1126">whether one of three directors of the company, whose own proprietary company provided administrative services to the company, would be administering the scheme, and would therefore be prohibited from doing so without leave of the court by s 411(7) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1126">held : on the evidence, no.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 2 Commencement [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 3 Constitutional basis for this Act</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 4 Referring States</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 5 General territorial application of Act</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 6 Effect of this Part</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 7 Location of other interpretation provisions</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 11 Associates of bodies corporate</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 112 Types of companies</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 127 Execution of documents (including deeds) by the company itself</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 320 Lodgment of half-year reports with ASIC</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 321 ASIC power to require lodgment</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 412 Information as to compromise with creditors</title>
<title id="l15">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601BM Effect of registration under this Part</title>
<title id="l16">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1321 Appeals from decisions of receivers, liquidators etc.</title>
<title id="l17">INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l18">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 28 General insurer must hold sufficient assets</title>
<title id="l19">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 54 Entry on premises</title>
<title id="l20">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 55 Powers of APRA or inspector</title>
<title id="l21">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 56 Persons to comply with requirements of APRA or the inspector</title>
<title id="l22">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 116A Assets and liabilities in Australia</title>
<title id="l23">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l24">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 8 Application of Act</title>
<title id="l25">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 9 Exceptions to application of Act</title>
<title id="l26">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l27">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l28">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
<title id="l29">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 26 Dealing in futures contracts through intermediaries: first</title>
<title id="l30">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 27 Dealing in futures contracts through intermediaries: second and</title>
<title id="l31">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 29 Own account dealings and transactions: futures contracts</title>
<title id="l32">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l33">UNCLAIMED MONEY ACT 1995 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">decision of minister under migration act 1958 (cth) s 501a(2) to set aside non-adverse decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">substantial criminal record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">cancellation of visa in national interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">departmental issues paper before minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">misstatement in issues paper of appellant's criminal record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">whether failure to consider accurate statement of appellant's criminal record constituted jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">whether errors so insignificant as could not materially have affected the decision administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">test stated by mason j in minister for aboriginal affairs v peko-wallsend ltd [1986] hca 40 ; (1986) 162 clr 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 340">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">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="cp3.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">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="cp4.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">literal meaning unambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">draftsman's mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">parliament's intention clear from context and legislative history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80b (5), 80c (3).  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">losses of previous years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">holding company and subsidiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">arrangement by continuing shareholder for purpose of enabling company to take previous year's losses into account for deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80, 80b, 80c (3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">decision to deport prohibited immigrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">improper exercise of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">scope for review  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth.) s. 5.  migration act 1958 (cth.) ss. 8 , 18  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">review of decision to deport prohibited immigrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">nature of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">whether improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">whether minister acted in accordance with stated government policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 (1), 5 (1) (e), (2) (b), (f), 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 65">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 8 (2), (3), 18 . on 10th march, 1981, the minister for immigration and ethnic affairs declared that pursuant to s. 8 (2) of the migration act 1958 it was undesiralbe that the applicant be permitted to remain in australia and in reliance upon s. 18 of the migration act 1958 he ordered that the applicant be deported from australia. the applicant sought an order of review in respect of these decisions pursuant to s. 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">town planning (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">development applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">statutory requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">advertisement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">adequacy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">whether mandatory or directory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">effect of inadequacy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">appeal by objector</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">function of local government court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1973] HCA 39">city of brisbane town planning act, 1964-1971 (q.), s. 22*.   * [1973] hca 39 ; (1973) 133 clr 242 at pp 250-251</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">whether costs should be awarded against a non-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">role of northern land council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">costs order sought against non-party refused costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">whether costs order should be made in favour of successful respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">applicants claim to have pursued litigation in public interest costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1367">costs of issues</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1367" id="cs0">1 On 13 June 2008, I delivered judgment in this matter: Lansen v Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage [2008] FCA 903. I dismissed the application. I did not then deal with the costs of the proceeding. I had also previously, on 13 May 2008, declined to make any order on the applicants' motion of 29 April 2008 for an interlocutory order restraining the second respondent from further evacuating the upstream and downstream ends of the McArthur River diversion channel and associated orders (the applicants' motion): Lansen v Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage (No 2) [2008] FCA 909. I reserved the costs of the applicants' motion.</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 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l3">ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l5">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 45 Minister may make agreement</title>
<title id="l6">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 133 Grant of approval</title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l8">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l9">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>