Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">copyright in practice exams and answers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">originality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">additional relief for conversion of infringing copy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether innocent infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">ss 115 and 116 copyright act 1968 (cth) bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether assignment of copyright effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">vesting of property in trustee in bankruptcy trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">sponsorship and use of logos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether misleading and deceptive conduct and representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether knowingly concerned in or party to contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">ss 52 , 53 and 75b of trade practices act 1974 (cth) trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether likely to deceive or cause confusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether trade mark to be revoked defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">whether publications defamatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">truth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] FCA 995">qualified privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">misconduct of respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">undue prolongation of defence.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">time for taxation of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">departure from general rule in federal court rules order 62 r 3(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">time for payment of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">o 62 r 3(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">costs to be paid forthwith.  orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1823">stay of orders for taxation and payment of costs pending disposition of application for leave to appeal and any appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1785">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1785">costs orders against a non-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1785">discretion to award indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1785">entitlement of asic as an intervener to costs orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 974">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 974">whether proceedings of such a nature as to persuade the court to exercise discretion to depart from the ordinary rule as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 974">substantive proceedings concerned the issue of locus standi of incorporated association to bring an action pursuant to the disability discrimination act 1992 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 974">whether success in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 974">whether proceedings in the public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 974">conduct of the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">application by respondent for indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">where applicant failed to comply with orders of court requiring applicant to file certain documents in preparation for trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">where respondents brought notice of motion seeking orders in relation to applicant's non-compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">where commencement of trial adjourned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">where applicant's failure to file documents the principal reason for adjournment of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">circumstances in which court may vary ordinary rule as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">whether applicant's conduct warrants special order as to costs.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">application for costs to be paid before conclusion of principal proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">whether appropriate to depart from general rule in o 62, r 3(3). practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">guillotine orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">where respondents seek order pursuant to o 35a that proceedings be stayed or dismissed if applicant does not comply with another order of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">whether such order appropriate in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">relevant principles.  held: applicant's failure to comply with orders of court do not amount to misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">applicant's conduct does not warrant special order as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">costs to be paid on a party and party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">no inference that applicant's failure to comply with orders part of a delaying strategy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">no reason to order payment of costs before conclusion of principal proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">not appropriate circumstances for making of guillotine order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 903">respondents' application for order pursuant to o 35a dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">action summarily dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">unreasonable to have subjected the respondents to the expenditure of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether assignable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">protection of confidentiality in hands of transferee  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether contract rescinded or varied by subsequent contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">intention of parties  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">ownership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether works authored by employee or contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">amendments by copyright owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether amendments create new copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">reproduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether implied license to reproduce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">compilations of data</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether sufficient skill, judgment and labour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether reproduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">assignment of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether to be inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">secondary infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">authorization</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">significance of control  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">copyright infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">method of calculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">loss of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">secondary loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">when awarded   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">license</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether implied from custom and usage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.28">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether inferred from conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.29">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">onus of proof  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.30">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">chose in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.31">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.32">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">where cause of action ancillary to right or interest in property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.33">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether void for maintenance or champerty   tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.34">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">accessorial liability of directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.35">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">joint tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.36">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">concerted action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.37">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">procuring or inducing infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.38">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">whether separate tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.39">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">unlawful interference with trade or business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.40">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.41">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">unlawful purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.42">cited from="[2007] FCA 151">unlawful means</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1297">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1297">damages for breach of warranties and condition on sale of heavy machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1297">vacation of date for final hearing occasioned by respondent's belated production on discovery of incorrect as-built drawings of subject machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1297">order as to security for costs vacated on application of acquirer of machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1297">liberty to apply for modified varied orders as to security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">conversion damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">whether lump sum costs orders should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 986">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 986">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 986">whether an order for compensatory damages under s.115(2) of the copyright act 1968 (cth) should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 986">whether an order for additional damages should be made pursuant to s.115(4) of the copyright act 1968 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">order for costs in a gross sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">further order sought seven months after initial costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">non-compliance with case management practice note</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">whether applicant should pay the respondent's costs thrown away by reason of the trial being adjourned and on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">principles relevant to an award of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">applicant failed to file and serve his complete case in accordance with pre-trial orders and directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">no adequate explanation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">applications granted costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">time for taxation and payment of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1621">whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs forthwith</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 986" id="cs0">Whether there is a need to deter will depend upon the particular circumstances of the case, including whether it is easy to copy the relevant copyright work and whether it is easy to detect such infringements ( Boyapati v Rockfeller Management Corporation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1375 ; [2008] FCA 1375 ; 2008 78 IPR 600 at [22] per Kenny J). Confidential information
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 392" id="cs1">One instance where an exercise of the power was contemplated occurred in Boyapati v Rockefeller Management Corporation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1375 , 78 IPR 600. The respondents were there found to have infringed the applicants' copyright. The respondents' conduct was also found to be such as to warrant an order that costs be taxed and paid forthwith and that 50% of the costs were to be paid on an indemnity basis.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 633" id="cs2">Next, the Act prescribes the manner and order in which a Court is to assess damages under ss 115 and 116 of the Act. The question posed by s 116(1C) cannot be addressed until damages have been assessed under s 115: Boyapati v Rockefeller Management Corporation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1375 ; (2008) 78 IPR 600 at [15] . Conversion damages under s 116 of the Act are in addition to relief under s 115 of the Act, not the other way round: s 116(1B) of the Act. If the relief the Court has granted or proposes to grant under s 115 is sufficient, no additional award is made under s 116 of the Act: s 116(1C) of the Act. Finally, there should be no overlap between the damages awarded under ss 115 and 116 of the Act: International Writing Institute Inc v Rimila Pty Ltd (1995) 57 FCR 135 and Sutherland Publishing Company [1936] Ch 323 , 340-341 (per Romer LJ) and 342-343 (per Greene LJ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1621" id="cs3">27 In this circumstance, the Commissioner should have his costs thrown away by reason of the adjournment of the trial, including the hearings on 5 and 18 September 2008. The next question is whether these costs should be paid on an indemnity basis. The usual rule is that costs are payable on a party and party basis, unless the circumstances of the case warrant a departure from the normal course: see Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited [1993] FCA 536 ; (1993) 46 FCR 225 (" Colgate-Palmolive ") at 233 per Sheppard J; Re Wilcox: Ex parte Venture Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 151 at 152-53 per Black CJ and 156-58 per Cooper and Merkel JJ; and O 62 of the Rules. It is unnecessary to outline in detail the principles governing when a departure from the usual rule is justified: see, for example, Boyapati v Rockefeller Management Corporation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1375 (" Boyapati (No 2 )") and the authorities therein. As the Full Court said in Hamod v New South Wales (2002) 188 ALR 659 at 665 (per Gray J, with whom Carr and Goldberg JJ agreed), indemnity costs "serve the purpose of compensating a party fully for costs incurred, as a normal costs order could not be expected to do, when the Court takes the view that it was unreasonable for the party against whom the order is made to have subjected the innocent party to the expenditure of costs".</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 6 Repeal of Copyright Acts</title>
<title id="l2">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 115 Actions for infringement</title>
<title id="l3">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 116 Rights of owner of copyright in respect of infringing copies</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">compulsory acquisition of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">validity of taking order under land administration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">whether land taken for a proper purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">whether more land taken than required for railway purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">whether railway authorised by a special act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">availability of doctrine of severance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">existence and scope of independent doctrine of approbation and reprobation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] WASCA 211">whether a binding election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">administrative appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">facts as found by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">no material error of law  statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">meaning of "request"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">meaning of "state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">whether words to be given ordinary meaning australian sports drug agency act 1990 and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">requirements of regulation 17</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">whether composite conduct (oral and written) can satisfy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">objective test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 955">whether written notice given in conformity with regulation 37</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">the daniels corporation international pty ltd v australian competition and consumer commission  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">statutory notice to produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">whether statute abrogated legal professional privilege.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">notice to produce documents to australian competition and consumer commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">commission investigating whether trade practices act 1974 (cth) contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">whether documents to be produced included those for which legal professional privilege claimed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">australian securities and investments commission v edensor nominees pty ltd  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">federal courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court exercising federal or state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court had power to make orders pursuant to the corporations law of a state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether australian securities and investments commission "the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether remedies sought were "an injunction or declaration".  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court exercising federal or state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether australian securities and investments commission "the commonwealth".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">corporation of the city of enfield v development assessment commission  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">judicial review of administrative discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">jurisdictional facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">consent of statutory authority to provisional development plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">consent prohibited if development "non-complying"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">classification a jurisdictional fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">whether statutory authority exceeded power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">whether weight to be accorded to opinion of statutory authority upon judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">whether court restricted to evidence before statutory authority.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">restraint of apprehended breach of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">error with respect to jurisdictional fact.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">error with respect to jurisdictional fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2000] HCA 5">availability of prerogative writs and equitable remedies.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">katsuno v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">juries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">practice in victoria of provision of conviction and other information concerning potential jurors to director of public prosecutions by police</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">information used to exercise challenge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">whether practice prohibited by juries act 1967 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">consequences of invalidation of practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">whether prohibition of practice relates to the constitution and authority of the jury and to the trial process in a fundamental respect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">whether breach constituted a fundamental failure to observe requirements of the criminal process.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">juries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">nature of and entitlement to peremptory challenge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">relevance of reasons for exercise.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">constitutional requirement of trial by jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">representative nature of the jury.  jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">commonwealth offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">trial in state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">provision of information by police to prosecutor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">information used to exercise challenge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">whether practice prohibited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1999] HCA 50">whether breach constituted a fundamental failure to observe requirements of the criminal trial.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">delegated legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">family law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">o 24 r 1(8) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">inadmissibility of evidence as to anything said in conference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">rule-making power vested in judges of family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">scope of rule-making power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">"practice and procedure" of family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">consistency with family law act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">matters arising under family law act 1975 (cth).   family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">conference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">inadmissibility of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">inconsistency with act.   constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">family law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">o 36a r 5(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">time limit of seven days on application for review of exercise by registrar of delegated powers of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">whether effective supervision and control by family court over exercise of delegated powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">validity of time limit for review.   statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.19">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">delegated legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.20">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">family law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.21">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">severance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.22">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">substantial purpose and effect of impugned provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.23">cited from="[1996] HCA 8">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">australian securities commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">private examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">transcripts released to royal commission for internal use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">subsequent decision to release for use in royal commission's public hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">whether examinee entitled to opportunity to object</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">power to direct party to do any act necessary to do justice between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">extent of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 16(1)(d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">australian securities commission act 1989 (cth), ss. 19(2)(b) , 22 (1), 24 , 25 (3), 127 (1), (4).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">inherent or implied jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">court's implied jurisdiction to regulate its own procedures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">preliminary determination of issues of fact and law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">o. 29 of the federal court rules does not exclude implied jurisdiction of court to determine an issue or question before others.  judgment and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">no judgment or order if judge publishes findings on some issues in case without intending to incorporate those findings in an order.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">judge publishes preliminary findings of fact and law not intended to be incorporated in formal order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">findings need not be incorporated in order where hearing and determination of particular issues conducted in exercise of implied jurisdiction rather than under o. 29</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">appeal not competent as no judgment or order.  federal court of australia act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">s. 24  federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 121">o. 29</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">driving offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">prescribed concentration of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">sample of breath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">analysis of sample furnished within three hours after driving vehicle indicating presence in blood of more than prescribed concentration of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">whether offence committed only when vehicle involved in accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 6">road safety act 1986 (vict.), s.49(1)(f).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">insolvent company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">whether companies (south australia) code s.533(1) applicable in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">federal court of australia act s.56</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">relevant considerations in exercise of courts discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">whether predisposition to order security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">jurisdiction act s.79</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">whether insolvent company suing at behest of major creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">domestic rather than commercial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">natural person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 109">federal court rules 0 28 r 3(1)(d).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trading and financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">prohibition of corporations from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">imposition of liability for damages on persons involved in such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">imposition on persons other than corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4(1) , 52 (1), 75b, 82 (1), 84 (2).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trading and financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">character of corporation which has barely begun to carry on business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">relevance of constitution including objects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">non-federal claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">whether part of same matter as federal claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), ss. 76 , 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 86.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">proceedings in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">claim for relief under federal statute and at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">jurisdiction in common law claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">the consitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xxxix.), 71, 75, 76, 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 19 , 22 , 32</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 40</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s. 15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 , 53 , 80 , 82, 86.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">o 29 r 2 fcr</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">determination of separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">whether questions of 'liability', and damages and other relief, should be determined separately in a proceeding alleging contravention of ss 52 and 53 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">whether determination of separate questions would best promote the overarching purpose in s 37m federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">whether appropriate to determine questions separately where it is possible that the same witnesses will be called at each stage of a split hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">minister commissioned and publicly announced an investigation into the rupture of a major natural gas pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">minister retained experts to carry out the investigation and prepare and deliver a report to him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">minister appointed experts as inspectors under s 62 of the petroleum pipelines act 1969 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">first-named appellant a licensee of the pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">second-named appellant the operator of gas processing facilities connected to the pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">whether the investigators were obliged to accord procedural fairness to the appellants before completing and delivering their report to the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">juridical basis of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">procedural fairness and the exercise of non-statutory public functions and powers or prerogative powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">reputation as an interest protected by procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">preliminary decisions and investigations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">citing from="[2009] WASCA 231">whether any obligation to accord procedural fairness was breached</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 466" id="cs0">The general principles relating to the application of the rule are well-known. They are set out in Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1999] FCA 718 ; (1999) 217 ALR 495. It is not necessary to recite those principles. Recent case examples in which Reading has been considered and applied include: Australian Equity Investors, An Arizona Limited Partnership v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Limited [2010] FCA 254 ; Permanent Custodians Ltd v Tony Geagea  Ors [2010] NSWSC 117 ; Scantech Ltd v Asbury [2009] FCA 1480 ; SA Water Corporation v United Water International Pty Ltd [2009] SASC 383 ; BW Offshore Ltd v Anzon Australia Limited [2009] FCA 1133 ; Sadiqi v Commonwealth (No 2) [2009] FCA 1117 ; (2009) 181 FCR 1 ; Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited (No 5) [2009] FCA 659 ; and Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [2009] FCA 534 ; (2009) 177 FCR 449. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] MRTA 443" id="cs1">The agent also points out that where there is any ambiguity regarding interpretation , the Interpretation of Acts 1901, section 15AA is relevant, and cites a recent Federal court case of Apache( Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [2009] FCA 534). The agent also points out the actions taken by the visa applicant, and how she had endeavoured to clarify before she made her application with the University and with the Department her situation and was led to believe that she would meet the 15 points criteria for her Honours degree (T f 51). The agent attached copies of the relevant documents to her submission. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] WASCA 231" id="cs2">Although the solicitors for the joint Commonwealth/State inquiry informed the Apache companies that their client did not consider that its consent was required in order to enable the Apache companies to produce the document, they added that, to the extent any release might be necessary, the joint Commonwealth/State inquiry released the Apache companies from their undertaking. See the letter dated 21 May 2009 from the solicitors for the joint Commonwealth/State inquiry. On 22 May 2009, McKerracher J delivered his reasons for decision in Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [2009] FCA 534 ; (2009) 256 ALR 56. His Honour held, relevantly, that the disclosure by officers of the State to the joint Commonwealth/State inquiry of documents provided by the Apache companies to the State pursuant to notices issued under s 63 of the Act was not for the purposes of the Act and the Petroleum Pipelines Regulations within the meaning of s 63 of the Act [130] - [131]. Upon McKerracher J delivering his reasons, the Apache companies invited Mr Bills to withdraw the s 63 notice which required production of the 11 May 2009 document.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AA Regard to be had to purpose or object of Act</title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l5">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l7">JURIES ACT </title>
<title id="l8">JURIES ACT - SECT 21 Jury lists</title>
<title id="l9">JURIES ACT - SECT 63 Food and refreshment</title>
<title id="l10">PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l11">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l12">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 - SECT 3 </title>
<title id="l13">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 - SECT 50 </title>
<title id="l14">PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l15">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 </title>
<title id="l16">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 4 </title>
<title id="l17">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 6 </title>
<title id="l18">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 12 </title>
<title id="l19">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 21 </title>
<title id="l20">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 24 </title>
<title id="l21">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 25 </title>
<title id="l22">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 35 </title>
<title id="l23">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 37 </title>
<title id="l24">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 41 </title>
<title id="l25">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 62 </title>
<title id="l26">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 63 </title>
<title id="l27">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 64 </title>
<title id="l28">PETROLEUM PIPELINES ACT 1969 - SECT 65 </title>
<title id="l29">PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (MANAGEMENT OF WELL OPERATIONS) REGULATIONS 2006 </title>
<title id="l30">PETROLEUM (SUBMERGED LANDS) (PIPELINES) REGULATIONS 2007 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">alleged promise by shopping centre tenant to provide financial assistance to group litigation by other tenants against landlord</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">no relevant implied representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">no pleaded causal connexion to actionable loss and damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">no reasonable prospect of repleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">statement of claim struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 837">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 82 Actions for damages.</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 87 Ancillary orders.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">total failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">pleasure cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">sinking of during cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">injury to passenger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">fare paid in advance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">right to recover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">damages for disappointment and distress.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">stay of actions upon bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">exception for "personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">whether disability discrimination claim within exception held: disability discrimination claim not stayed upon bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">constitutes "personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt". practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">relitigation of events subject of earlier proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">where disability discrimination claim not able to be brought in earlier proceeding due to complaint made to hreoc being on foot held: disability discrimination claim dismissed as abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">applicant chose to lodge hreoc complaint and file federal court proceeding when he did and did not advise court of hreoc proceeding for some time. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">disability discrimination claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">no allegation of disability in statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1903">no allegation of less favourable treatment</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1903" id="cs0">8 The trial of the earlier proceeding was held on 5 and 6 October 2006. On 31 May 2007, I made an order that the proceeding be dismissed and I delivered reasons for judgment: Rana v University of South Australia [2007] FCA 816. I will refer to those reasons as the earlier judgment. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 941" id="cs1">I delivered reasons for making that order: Rana v University of South Australia [2007] FCA 816.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 365">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 365">consent determination of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 365">statutory preconditions satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 365">appropriate to make the orders sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">consent determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">court's discretion making order under s 87</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">relevant factors court to take into account when determining whether court is satisfied it is appropriate to make orders sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] FCA 1208">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] FCA 1208">consent determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] FCA 1208">within power and appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] FCA 1208">western desert people</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] FCA 1208">shared area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] FCA 1208">co-existing native title holders from different groups</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] FCA 1208">order in terms of consent minute.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">consent determination covering part of the area of the native title determination application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">proposed native title holder group different from description of native title claim group in application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether proceedings affected by possible defect in authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether order should be made pursuant to s 84d(4)(b) of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether determination should be made pursuant to s 87 or s 87a of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">requirements of s 87a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether proposed consent determination within power and appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">statutory preconditions of s 87a satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">appropriate to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">application for determination of native title under s 87 of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">consideration of whether the parties have satisfied the criteria set out in s 87 such that the jurisdiction of the court is enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">consideration of whether it is appropriate for the court to make an order in terms of the agreement reached by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">the central focus is on the agreement and whether it was freely entered into on an informed basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">if the court finds this to be the case it will infer the existence of the native title that is at the heart of that agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">the court must be satisfied that the state has taken a real interest in the proceedings in the interests of the community generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">however there must be a balance between the stringency of the processes followed by the state in assessing the applicant's evidence and the need to take a flexible approach that is aimed at facilitating negotiation and achieving agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">parties filed joint submissions in support of a minute of a proposed consent determination and a statement of agreed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 1343">held that the agreement is free and informed and that the terms of the proposed orders are unambiguous and clear.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">application for determination of native title under s 61(1) native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">consent determination of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">parties filed joint submissions in support of a minute of a proposed consent determination and a statement of agreed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">whether court satisfied orders in, or consistent with, minute of proposed consent determination of native title are within its power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">whether it is appropriate for the court to make the orders sought by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">nomination of prescribed body corporate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">recent amendments to the amended application as a consequence of the recent death of one of the persons comprising the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">anthropological report completed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">significant volume of anthropological and affidavit evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 911">application of s 87 native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 859">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 859">determination of native title after questions of extinguishment determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 859">agreed fact in extinguishment proceedings that native title exists subject to extinguishment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 859">previous consent determination over other parts of application area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 859">connection evidence over whole of application area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 646">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 646">determination of native title by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 646">partial claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 646">whether it is within the power of the court and appropriate to make an order under section 87a of the native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 646">whether section 225 of the native title act satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 646">determination of native title made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">common law extinguishment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">particular non-exclusive native title rights agreed to exist subject to extinguishment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">mineral leases granted pursuant to an agreement between the state and leaseholders ratified by specific legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">purposes of agreement extended beyond mining</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">leaseholders conducted open cut mining, built a township and other infrastructure on one third of the leased area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">the mine and town now closed and area rehabilitated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">whether mineral leases conferred right of exclusive possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">whether rights granted by the mineral leases are inconsistent with the native title rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">whether grant of mineral leases extinguished the native title rights over the entire leased area or only the developed leased areas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">relevance of actual exercise of rights by the leaseholders or by the native title holders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 498">relevance of rehabilitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">covering part of the area of the native title determination application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">formal requirements of s 87a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">substantive requirements of s 87a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">whether proposed consent determination within power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">whether proposed consent determination appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">difference in description of native title holder group in determination and native title claim group in application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">list of names in application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">group defined by descent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">nevertheless appropriate to make order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">alteration not constituting amendment to application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">agreement reflecting membership based, inter alia, on descent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 944">proposed determination within power and appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1703">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1703">consent determination of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1703">whether determination should be made pursuant to s 87 or s 87a of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1703">statutory preconditions of s 87a satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1703">appropriate to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1703">orders made pursuant to s 87a.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 516" id="cs0">The Court must consider whether it would be appropriate to make the orders sought. The discretion conferred by s 87A is in substance the same as that which applies in the exercise of the Court's discretion under s 87 and must, of course, be exercised judicially and within the broad boundaries ascertained by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act: Brown v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 at [22] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1343" id="cs1">In considering the effect of these words, it is important to identify what it is that s 87(1A) requires the Court to consider appropriate. The wording of the section makes it clear that the question for the Court is whether it is appropriate to make an order in the terms of the agreement reached between the parties. Therefore the central focus of the section is that agreement: Lovett v Victoria [2007] FCA 474 (" Lovett ") at [37]; Nangkiriny v Western Australia (2002) 117 FCR 6 ; [2002] FCA 660 at [8] ; James v Western Australia [2002] FCA 1208 at [4] ; Ward v Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [9] ; Cox v Western Australia [2007] FCA 588 at [12] ; Brown v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 at [23] ; Hughes v Western Australia [2007] FCA 365 at [9] ; Kogolo v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1703 at [18] and Eringa v South Australia [2008] FCA 1370 (" Eringa ") at [33]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 911" id="cs2">In Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 , Bennett J observed:

 [22] The exercise of the Court's discretion pursuant to s 87A imports the same principles as those applying to the making of a consent determination of native title under s 87. The discretion conferred by s 87A and by s 87 must be exercised judicially and within the broad boundaries ascertained by reference to the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act ( Hughes at [8] citing Lota Warria (on behalf of the Poruma and Masig Peoples) v Queensland [2005] FCA 1117 ; (2005) 223 ALR 62 at [7] ). (emphasis added)

(cf similar comments of Emmett J in Munn (for and on behalf of the Gunggari People) v Queensland [2001] FCA 1229 ; [2001] 115 FCR 109 at [28] )
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 859" id="cs3">
 In Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla people) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 ( Brown No 1 ), I made orders by consent in relation to Determination Area A, which was part of the land the subject of these proceedings, WAD 6185 of 1998.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 646" id="cs4">64 Bennett J in Brown on behalf of the Ngarla People v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 at [23] referred to North J's observations in Ward v Western Australia [2006] FCA 1848 at [6] ---[9] where he said that the Act is designed to encourage parties to take responsibility for the resolution of native title proceedings, without the need for litigation. The Court's power must be exercised flexibly and with this purpose in mind. I am satisfied that the Court has power to make the determinations in the terms proposed by the parties by agreement, and that these orders can appropriately be made to give effect to the parties' agreement without a full hearing of the Applicant's claim. Such orders determine under the laws of Australia that Native Title exists in the Determination Areas according to the traditional laws and customs of the Gangalidda People. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 498" id="cs5">[213] Question 5: If the answer to (4) is "yes", in which areas has native title been wholly extinguished? [219] CONCLUSION [229]
 INTRODUCTION
 The applicants claim native title over certain land in Western Australia. A consent determination was made in respect of part of the land over which the applicants claimed native title ( Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 ( Brown No 1 )). In that consent determination some areas, designated Determination Area B and set out in the Second Schedule to the determination, were specifically excluded. One part of Determination Area B was an area subject to two mineral leases granted pursuant to the agreement ( the Agreement ) amended and ratified by the Iron Ore (Mount Goldsworthy) Agreement Act 1964 (WA) ( the Agreement Act ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 944" id="cs6">The parties, however, submit that it could equally be made under s 87. They say that the agreement they have reached relates both to "an area ... included in the area covered by the application" (s 87A(1)(b)) and "part of the proceedings" (s 87(1)(a)(ii); s 87(3)). In this connection reference is made to Brown (On behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025 at [14] . The parties note that following the repeal of s 87(1)(d) the Court no longer has first to consider whether an order should be made under s 87A rather than under s 87. They submit, however, that where it is possible for an order to be made under both sections it is preferable to use s 87A.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 710" id="cs7"/>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1703" id="cs8">The Court's jurisdiction to hear and determine native title applications is specifically provided for by the Act in s 81. This jurisdiction expressly includes the power to make orders by consent pursuant to s 87A. These statutory provisions make it clear that the Court's jurisdiction is enlivened. It should, however, be noted that the agreement in this case relates to part of the land and waters the subject of the Ngurrara application. The making of a determination of native title in respect of part of an application is a matter that falls within both s 87(3) and s 87A of the Act. It follows that the Court may make orders determining that native title exists in relation to Determination Area A while leaving the issues outstanding in relation to Determination Area B for resolution at a later date (Munn (for and on behalf of the Gunggari People) v State of Queensland [2001] FCA 1229 ; (2001) 115 FCR 109 at [6] ). This approach has been taken in a number of cases in Western Australia under s 87 (Nangkiriny v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 660 ; (2002) 117 FCR 6 ; Nangkiriny v Western Australia [2004] FCA 1156 ; James on behalf of the Martu People v State of Western Australia [2002] FCA 1208 ; Hughes (on behalf of the Eastern Guruma People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 365) and under alternatively s 87 and s 87A ( Brown (on behalf of the Ngarla People) v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1025). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 2 Commencement [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 7 Racial Discrimination Act</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 8 Effect of this Act on State or Territory laws</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 9 Definitions located in Part 15</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 23C Confirmation of extinguishment of native title by previous exclusive possession acts of Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l8">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24BG Application for registration of body corporate agreements</title>
<title id="l9">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 47A Reserves etc. covered by claimant applications</title>
<title id="l10">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 47B Vacant Crown land covered by claimant applications</title>
<title id="l11">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 56 Determination whether native title to be held in trust</title>
<title id="l12">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61A Restrictions on making of certain applications</title>
<title id="l13">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 67 Overlapping native title determination applications</title>
<title id="l14">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 87 Power of Federal Court if parties reach agreement</title>
<title id="l15">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 87A Power of Federal Court to make determination for part of an area</title>
<title id="l16">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 94A Order containing determination of native title</title>
<title id="l17">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 251D Land or waters on which a public work is constructed, established or situated</title>
<title id="l18">NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l19">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l20">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l21">NATIVE TITLE (PRESCRIBED BODIES CORPORATE) REGULATIONS 1999 </title>
<title id="l22">AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l23">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l24">TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l25">CONSERVATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l26">FISH RESOURCES MANAGEMENT ACT 1994 </title>
<title id="l27">IRON ORE (MOUNT GOLDSWORTHY) AGREEMENT ACT 1964 </title>
<title id="l28">JETTIES ACT 1926 </title>
<title id="l29">LAND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l30">LAND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1997 - SECT 56 </title>
<title id="l31">LAND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1997 - SECT 83 </title>
<title id="l32">LESLIE SOLAR SALT INDUSTRY AGREEMENT ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l33">MINING ACT 1978 </title>
<title id="l34">PEARLING ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l35">PORT AUTHORITIES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l36">PUBLIC WORKS ACT 1902 </title>
<title id="l37">TITLES (VALIDATION) AND NATIVE TITLE (EFFECT OF PAST ACTS) ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l38">TITLES (VALIDATION) AND NATIVE TITLE (EFFECT OF PAST ACTS) ACT 1995 - SECT 12I </title>
<title id="l39">TITLES (VALIDATION) AND NATIVE TITLE (EFFECT OF PAST ACTS) ACT 1995 - SECT 12J </title>
<title id="l40">TRANSPORT CO-ORDINATION ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l41">WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT 1950 </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>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 197">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 197">power of court to fine for civil contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 197">respondent's conduct contumacious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 197">fine imposed.  contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 197">power of court to fine for civil contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 197">appropriate penalty. by notice of motion the applicants sought an order that the respondent be dealt with for contempt of court constituted by a breach of an order of the court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">defiance of orders of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether term of imprisonment manifestly excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">comparison with other sentences for contempt imposed by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether imprisonment appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">power to fine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">effect of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether sentence should have been in parity with sentence of another contemnor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether primary judge failed to take account of appellant's advanced age and ill health</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether primary judge failed to give credit for previous good character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether double punishment for the same offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">separate sentences for manufacturing and selling prohibited products at different locations on different dates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether primary judge misconstrued earlier statement of appellant to court through counsel  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">sentence for contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 17">whether respondent should be ordered to pay costs of successful appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">considerations relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">contempt found to be wilful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">whether contempt public in nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">the effect of the contempt on the administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">the contemnor's culpability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">whether any relevant prior convictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">relevance of lack of apology</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 650">whether any order for costs should mitigate penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 585">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 585">application for extension of time within which to file and serve notice of appeal from order declaring applicant guilty of contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 585">where all relevant factors other than merits of proposed appeal in favour of granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 585">whether applicant able to demonstrate prospect of success   held: extension of time granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 585">without hearing submissions as on appeal, court unable to conclude that proposed appeal has no prospect of success.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 17" id="cs0">Nor is it apparent from the reasons for judgment why the primary judge determined that the appellant's conduct "warrants nothing less than a sentence of imprisonment": at [45]. It seems to me that the primary judge was clearly of the view that the appellant's conduct was deserving of imprisonment, but for the reasons I have already alluded to, the appropriate question is whether in all of the circumstances no other sentence was appropriate. There is no consideration in the primary judge's reasons as to why punishment by way of substantial fines would not have been appropriate in the circumstances. If the appellant's impecuniosity was the reason, as Lander J said in Jones v Toben (No 2) [2009] FCA 477 at [83] :

 Impecuniosity could not be a reason to imprison a person when the appropriate penalty would otherwise be a fine.

  I would not disturb the costs order made in the Court below. I would not make any order as to the costs of the appeal particularly as the appellant has succeeded, in part at least, by reference to an argument which was not put in the Court below. I certify that the preceding seventy-six (76) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko. Associate:

Dated: 15 February 2011
Appendix: List of Cases

 Re Norman Leslie Gallagher v The Honourable Peter Durack [1982] FCA 252 ; (1982) 68 FLR 210

 Robert James Macleod v Australian Securities Commission [1993] FCA 553

 Australian Securities Commission v Macleod (No 3) (1993) 40 FCR 475

 Albert Langer v Australian Electoral Commission (1996) 59 FCR 463

 Australian Securities Commission v Errol John White [1998] FCA 850

 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corp Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1441

 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Goldstar Corp Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 585

 Australian Securities  Investments Commission v Matthews [1999] FCA 803 ; (1999) 32 ACSR 404

 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Hughes [2001] FCA 38 ; [2001] ATPR 41-807

 Australian Securities  Investments Commission v Reid [2002] FCA 84

 Australian Securities  Investments Commission v Eagle Inter-Link Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 1524

 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 1487 ; 196 ALR 576

 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Purple Harmony Plates Pty Ltd (No 4) [2003] FCA 49

 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v World Netsafe Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1501 ; 133 FCR 279

 Rip Curl International Pty Ltd v Phone Lab Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1215 ; (2004) 63 IPR 496

 Buchanan Turf Supplies Pty Ltd v Premier Turf Supplies Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1694

 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 3) (2006) 230 ALR 528 ; [2006] FCA 397

 Siminton v APRA (2006) 152 FCR 129 ; [2006] FCAFC 118

 Australian Securities  Investments Commission v Reid (No 2) [2006] FCA 700

 Pattinson (Trustee), In the matter of Bell (Bankrupt) v Bell [2007] FCA 137

 Bauer v Power Pacific International Media Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 349

 Universal City Studios LLLP v Hoey t/as DVD Kingdom [2007] FCA 806 ; 73 IPR 45

 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 10) [2007] FCA 1814

 Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2008] FCAFC 90

 Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 11) [2007] FCA 1815

 Ambrose (Trustee), In the matter of Peter Athanasas (Bankrupt) (No 2) [2008] FCA 1016

 Australian Competition  Consumer Commission v Levi (No 3) [2008] FCA 1586 ; [2008] ATPR 42-257

 Jones v Toben (No 2) [2009] FCA 477

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 650" id="cs1">The Court has an unfettered discretion in determining whether and on what basis to award costs: see Oshlack v Richmond River Council [1998] HCA 11 ; (1998) 193 CLR 72 ; Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCA 14 ; (2007) 228 CLR 651. It is common for costs to be awarded in favour of a successful Applicant in contempt proceedings: see BHP Steel at 351; Rip Curl International Pty Ltd v Phone Lab Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1215 ; (2004) 63 IPR 496. Courts, however, have awarded costs on a party and party basis (see: for example, Jones v Toben (No 2 ) [2009] FCA 477) and on an indemnity basis (see: for example, BHP Steel (AIS) Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2002] FCA 702). The reason that indemnity costs are frequently awarded where an applicant has successfully prosecuted charges of contempt is that the applicant has not been seeking any remedy on its own behalf but rather has been upholding the various public interests which are served by prosecutions for contempt of Court. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 585" id="cs2">I do not propose to set out any further details of the factual background of this matter. It is fully set out in the primary judge's reasons for finding the applicant guilty of contempt ( Jones v Toben [2009] FCA 354) and on penalty ( Jones v Toben (No 2) [2009] FCA 477). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31 Contempt of Court</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">HIGH COURT RULES 2004 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>