Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">in primary proceeding, applicant challenged decision of minister to issue notice of receipt of extradition request in relation to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">primary judge dismissed that application summarily as an abuse of process on ground that applicant had previously failed up to appellate level in challenge to determination by magistrate that applicant was eligible for surrender and to issue by magistrate of warrant for applicant's imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">it was a condition of magistrate's jurisdiction that minister had issued a notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">discussion of criterion for summary dismissal and criterion for final dismissal in the case of abuse of process. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">in primary proceeding, applicant challenged decision of minister to issue notice of receipt of extradition request in relation to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">primary judge dismissed that application summarily as an abuse of process on ground that applicant had previously failed up to appellate level in challenge to determination by magistrate that applicant was eligible for surrender and to issue by magistrate of warrant for applicant's imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">it was a condition of magistrate's jurisdiction that minister had issued a notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 165">discussion of criterion for summary dismissal and criterion for final dismissal in the case of abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">attempt to review extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">whether a person is " accused "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">" offence "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">whether warrants were for pre-trial investigative purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">no prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1133">declaratory relief in respect to validity of an extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">review of surrender determination of magistrate in respect of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">challenge to sufficiency of "supporting documents" under s 19 extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether certain arrest warrants validly authenticated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether arrest warrant backing for certain extradition offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether certain arrest warrants were for the arrest of the applicant for an extradition offence or for coercive investigation only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether determination of latter issue foreclosed by high court authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether dual criminality established for certain extradition offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether certain extradition offences barred by time limitation in finland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether applicant on remand for purposes of s 19 extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether notice of extradition request issued out of time for purposes of s 16 extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">whether applicant afforded reasonable time before magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">grounds of review not made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 781">orders of magistrate confirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">notice of receipt of extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">subsequent amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">primary judge held both notices invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">primary judge erred in holding the minister issuing the second notice failed to consider the matter afresh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">information before the minister included a sufficient statement of the respondent's conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 24">terms of notice severable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">issue of notice under s 16 by attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">magistrate's decision under s 19(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">independent administrative functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">nature of section 21 review by federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">nature of 'review'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">subsequent challenge to s 16 notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 2091">estoppel/abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">review of a magistrate's surrender determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">nature of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">precondition negatived in other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">whether discretion to withhold relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">notice of receipt of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where two notices have been issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued as a notice amending the first</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued by a different minister to the first extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">first notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether discretion to issue notice was validly exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act 1988 (cth) required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">dual criminality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister needed to receive all the material provided by the extradition country in order validly to exercise his function in accordance with law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">relief to be granted in circumstances where notice has been found to be invalid extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">second notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where first notice has been found to be invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where detention of the person the subject of the request has become unlawful under ss 15 and 17 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether minister had power to issue amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister for justice and customs can exercise powers of attorney-general under s 16 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act required extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where notice of receipt of extradition request has been found to be deficient in respect of certain paragraphs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the notice is wholly or partly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">possibility of severance of notice under s 46(2) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">division of portfolio responsibilities between two ministers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">effect of division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether one minister authorised to exercise powers conferred by statute on the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether s 16 of the extradition act evinces a contrary intention for the purposes of s 19a(1) of the acts interpretation act  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices deficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">severance of portions of either notice not possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices wholly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">vasiljkovic v commonwealth of australia  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">plaintiff remanded in custody pending determination of eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">arrest warrant for plaintiff in force in croatia on charge of certain war crimes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">arrest warrant constitutes relevant "supporting documentation" for purposes of s 19 of the extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">statement made by croatian investigating authorities of a well-founded suspicion that plaintiff committed the offences alleged, including recitation of evidence provided by witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">croatia declared to be an "extradition country" by extradition (croatia) regulations 2004 (cth), regs 3, 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act is a valid law of the commonwealth.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">plaintiff detained pending determination of eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition act , s 19(1) provided power of an administrative nature to conduct proceedings to determine eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition act , s 19(5) provided that the person to whom the proceedings relate is not entitled to adduce evidence to contradict allegations that the person has engaged in the conduct constituting an extradition offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">no prima facie evidence requirement applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act is invalid to the extent that it purports to confer a power to deprive an australian citizen of liberty otherwise than in exercise of the judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act when read together with the extradition (croatia) regulations is invalid to the extent that it purports to confer a power to deprive an australian citizen of liberty otherwise than upon a finding that there exists a prima facie case against that person of the commission of the offences alleged by the state requesting extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether law authorising such involuntary detention requires machinery for testing the validity of the charges made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether surrender proceedings are an integer of a "matter" for the purposes of ch iii of the constitution .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">external affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition (croatia) regulations not made pursuant to any treaty between australia and croatia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether, in the absence of a treaty, the declaration by the extradition (croatia) regulations of croatia as an extradition country is invalid for want of support by s 51(xxix) of the constitution or any other legislative power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act and the extradition (croatia) regulations operate by reference to the conduct of the plaintiff external to australia or by reference to an untested and untestable allegation of such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether the mere fact of a request by a foreign state makes the subject-matter of the request amenable to the exercise of the legislative power conferred by s 51(xxix).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">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="cp11.3">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="cp11.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">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="cp11.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">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="cp11.9">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="cp11.10">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="cp11.11">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="cp11.12">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="cp11.13">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="cp11.14">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>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">attempt to review extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">whether appellant is extraditable person within meaning of extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">whether proceedings were incapable of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">whether proceedings raised any justiciable issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">whether proceedings an abuse of process practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">whether arguments raised by appellant had been raised in other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 3">whether anshun estoppel applies in a proceeding concerning judicial review of administrative action where executive government is involved</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 3" id="cs0">2 This appeal proceeded pursuant to leave to appeal which I granted on 16 October 2008 ( Tervonen v Finland [2008] FCA 1539) ('the leave judgment'). In the leave judgment I concluded, applying the conventional test in Dcor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc [1991] FCA 655 ; (1991) 33 FCR 397 , that Mr Tervonen was entitled to consideration by a Full Court of his arguments that Flick J had erred in dismissing his application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), which sought to attack a request made by Finland on 27 July 2006 for his extradition.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 6 Meaning of extraditable person</title>
<title id="l2">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 12 Provisional arrest warrants</title>
<title id="l3">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 16 Notice by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l4">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Determination of eligibility for surrender</title>
<title id="l5">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 22 Surrender determination by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 16 Court divided in opinion</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 19 Original jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 16 Jurisdiction in Chambers</title>
<title id="l12">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 19 Quorum of a Full Court</title>
<title id="l13">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>