Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 48">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 48">notice of motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 48">adequacy of commissioner's appeal statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 48">any deficiency in appeal statement remedied by provision of further particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">whether the grant or refusal of leave to appeal is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">order 52 rule 2aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">distinction between a clear-cut case for the grant or refusal of leave and an evenly balanced case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">significance of no right of appeal from grant or refusal of leave or confusion about whether such a right exists. preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">refusal to grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">whether a matter of practice or procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">whether effectively final in nature.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">applications for summary judgment by applicant taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">whether original assessment is invalidated and rendered excessive by an amended assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">role of appeal statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">whether commissioner's appeal statement reveals a fundamental flaw that is not capable of being cured</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">whether arguable that applicant received a gst benefit from any identified scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">whether any gst benefit necessarily attributable to the making of a choice, election or application practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 37">application for summary judgment by party that bears the burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">the two ministers and the commonwealth, by their present application to secure a "summary judgment", seek to have these proceedings stopped at this point as a matter of law, without the need to look at the evidence. they say that, even assuming that the allegations in mr hicks' claim are accepted, there is no reasonable prospect of success. part of the application by the ministers and the commonwealth for summary judgment is on the basis that this court cannot enter into a consideration of a case which may result in a finding that an action of a state other than australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">here, the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">is unlawful. they say that there are no proper standards by which the court can resolve the issues raised by mr hicks because delicate questions of diplomatic negotiation between australia and the united states are involved and a finding by a court may impact on these relations.the question of mr hicks' internment is said to be "political" in nature and is one concerning foreign relations and these are areas into which the court should not intrude because the decision will involve standards which are "non-justiciable" and which a court cannot properly apply.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">consideration of an application to extend time for the filing and service of a notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">consideration of whether the judgment appealed from is an interlocutory or final judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">consideration of an application for summary dismissal of the proceedings under both s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) and order 20, rule 2 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">consideration of the relationship between approaches to the striking out of a pleading and entering summary judgment pursuant to either s 31a of the act or order 20, rule 2 of the federal court rules . bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">consideration of the nature of a claim falling within the exemption contained in s 116(2)(g) of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) and whether the applicant in the proceedings has standing to maintain the particular claim.  federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">s 24(1) , s 24(1a) , s 25  federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">order 52, rule 10; order 52, rule 15(1) ; order 52, rule 15(2)  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">s 116(2)(g)  trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">ss 52 , 51aa, 60, 82, 87(1d) rogers v asset loan co pty ltd [2006] fca 1708</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">quoted australian competition and consumer commission v fox symes  associates pty ltd [2005] fca 1071</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited trade practices commission v australian iron and steel pty limited [1990] fca 23 ; (1989) 22 fcr 305</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited rogers v asset loan co pty ltd  ors [2006] fca 434</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">quoted munnings v australian government solicitor [1994] hca 12 ; (1994) 120 alr 586</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited tampion v anderson [1973] vicrp 82 ; (1974) 3 alr 414</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited hall v nominal defendant [1966] hca 36 ; (1966) 117 clr 423</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited little v victoria (1998) 4 vr 596</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited wickstead v browne (1992) 30 nswlr 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited platypus leasing inc  ors v commissioner of taxation [2005] nswca 399</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited johnston v cameron [2002] fcafc 251 ; [2002] fcafc 251 ; (2002) 124 fcr 160</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited port of melbourne authority v ashun pty limited (1980) 147 clr 35</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited dcor corp pty ltd v dart industries inc [1991] fca 655 ; (1991) 33 fcr 397</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited ogawa v university of melbourne (no. 2) [2004] fca 1275</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited jess v scott and others (1986) 12 fcr 187</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited australian competition and consumer commission v maritime union of australia (2001) 114 fcr 427</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited cox v journeaux (no. 2) [1935] hca 48 ; (1935) 52 clr 713</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited beckham v drake [1849] engr 843 ; (1849) 2 hlc 579</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited wilson v united counties bank ltd (1920) ac 102</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.28">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited faulkner v bluett [1981] fca 3 ; (1981) 52 flr 115</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.29">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited bryant v commonwealth bank of australia (1997) 75 fcr 545</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.30">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited mannigel v hewlett phelps bc9101907</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.31">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited daemar v industrial commission of new south wales  ors (1988) 79 alr 591</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.32">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited fortron automotive treatments pty ltd v jones (no. 2) (2006) fca 1401</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.33">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited duncan v lipscombe child care services inc [2006] fca 458</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.34">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited general steel industries inc v commissioner for railways (nsw) [1964] hca 69 ; (1964) 112 clr 125</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.35">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited batistatos v roads and traffic authority of new south wales [2006] hca 27 ; [2006] hca 27 ; (2006) 227 alr 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.36">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited agar v hyde [2000] hca 41 ; (2000) 201 clr 552</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.37">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited boston commercial services pty ltd v ge capital finance australasia pty ltd [2006] fca 1352</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.38">cited from="[2007] FCA 195">cited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">summary dismissal of proceedings against certain respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application of s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">inapplicability to applications to strike out parts of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">nature of "reasonable prospect" assessment required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit of respondents denying relevant knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit unanswered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">generality of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit material insufficient to demonstrate no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">motion for summary dismissal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">international agreements between parties not at arm's length from each other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">non-arm's length consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">request for particulars of the matters taken into account by commissioner in making the determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">div 13 of pt iii of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">determinations made by the commissioner under s 136ad of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">relationship between s 177(1) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) and s 14zzo(b) of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">held : order for provision of particulars not made. procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">international agreements between parties not at arm's length from each other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">non-arm's length consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">determinations made by the commissioner under s 136ad of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">request for particulars of the matters taken into account by the commissioner in making the determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">div 13 of pt iii of income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">relationship between s 177(1) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) and s 14zzo(b) of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2006] FCA 1252">held : order for provision of particulars not made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">appeal from commissioner's disallowance of taxpayer's objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">requirement of federal court rules that commissioner file statement outlining succinctly the commissioner's contentions and the facts and issues in the appeal as the commissioner perceives them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">whether document filed by commissioner complies with rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">elements of complying statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">relevance to contents of statement that onus on an appeal lies on taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">relevance of fact that material omitted from statement available to taxpayer from other documents emanating from commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 335">costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">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="cp9.3">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="cp9.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">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="cp9.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">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="cp9.9">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="cp9.10">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="cp9.11">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="cp9.12">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="cp9.13">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="cp9.14">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="cp11.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 388">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 388">representative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 388">application for strike-out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 388">whether o 11 r 16 of the federal court rules applies to proceedings filed in fast track</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 388">whether pleading is without a factual basis and an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 388">whether need for separate determination of questions pursuant to ss 33z(1), 33zf(1) and/or s 37p(2) of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) and o 29 r 2 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 592">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 592">appeal from interlocutory decision of single judge sitting in the appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 592">whether the grant or refusal of extension of time is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">taxation appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">application for leave to file an amended appeal statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">appeal statement part of an obligation on the court to afford parties procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">prior positive statements made in court that the commissioner of taxation was not alleging "sham" against the taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">allegation of "sham" made in amended appeal statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">whether leave to file the amended document should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">held commissioner not in a special privileged position in relation to the affording of procedural fairness to a taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">held allegation of "sham" tantamount to an allegation of fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">held decision whether or not to permit amendments to appeal statement ought to be informed by the interests of the parties and by a wider public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">held procedurally unfair to grant leave to amend the appeal statement   professions and trades</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">lawyers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">right of appearance conferred by taxation administration act 1953 on commissioner of taxation and taxation officers authorised in writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">right of appearance not to be assimilated with right to practise in federal courts conferred by judiciary act 1903</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">risks entailed in direct briefing of barristers   taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">objections and appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">assessments not made on the footing that taxpayer a party to a sham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">absence of allegation of sham in commissioner's appeal statement and confirmed by statement at scheduling conference by commissioner's counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">amended appeal statement alleging sham filed by the commissioner without leave after all affidavits in chief filed and shortly prior to trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">whether procedurally fair to taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">late making of allegation of sham not procedurally fair</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.23">citing from="[2009] FCA 1155">leave to file amended appeal statement refused and direction that it be removed from court file</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1516">practice and procedure: application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1516">whether application for leave to appeal should be heard before a full court</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 388" id="cs0">Before leaving this aspect of the matter, it is relevant to consider the tax jurisdiction of the Court where the relevant document is an "Appeal Statement". An "Appeal Statement" is defined in the FCR to be a statement "outlining succinctly the Commissioner's contentions and the facts and issues in the appeal as the Commissioner perceives them": O 52B r 5(3) of the FCR. They take the place of pleadings, but they are not, in substance, pleadings: WR Carpenter at [35]; McDonald's Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2008] FCA 395 ; (2008) 69 ATR 898 at [6] ; see also Pacific Exchange Corporation Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 1155 ; (2009) 180 FCR 300 at [3] (cf Rio Tinto Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCA 335 ; (2004) 55 ATR 321 at [22] --- [27] and [58]). Their stated purpose is different --- to give each party and the Court a practical understanding of the parties' positions and summarise the essential issues on appeal: BAE Systems Australia (NSW) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation for the Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 48 ; (2008) 69 ATR 567 at [19] . Further, they are not subject to the same scrutiny as a pleading: BAE at [19]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 592" id="cs1">In Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1516 , Moore J held:

 ... [A]ll s 25(2) does is confer appellate jurisdiction on single judges and Full Courts to deal with applications for leave to appeal. Order 52, r 2AA prescribes, in my opinion unexceptionably, the mechanism that determines whether this jurisdiction will be exercised by a single judge, on the one hand, or a Full Court, on the other. As Buchanan J correctly observed in McDonald's Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2008] FCA 395 ; (2008 69 ATR 898 , referring to his Honour's earlier judgment in Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 47 , the provisions of O 52, r 2AA admit no debate about the existence of any such right of election. There is none.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1155" id="cs2">It has been observed in prior authority that the purpose of the appeal statement is one of informing a taxpayer of the Commissioner's view, at that time, of the bases of the Commissioner's rejection of an assessment objection. In this regard, it has been said that its purpose is a practical one: see BAE Systems Australia (New South Wales) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 48 ; (2008) 69 ATR 567. It has also been observed that the appeal statement is not a pleading: McDonald's Australia Limited v Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2008] FCA 395 ; (2008) 69 ATR 898. So much may be accepted. It is nonetheless a feature of an appeal statement that it forms part of an obligation which the Court has to afford the parties to a proceeding procedural fairness. One of the ways in which that particular obligation is fulfilled is by ensuring that a party to a proceeding knows the case it has to meet. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1516" id="cs3">

4 Mr Harding has asserted a right to elect and sought to exercise that right by having his application for leave heard by a Full Court. A submission was made by counsel for Mr Harding that the issue of whether an application for leave to appeal is to be heard by a Full Court of a single judge is addressed by s 25(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FC Act) and O 52 r 2AA could not modify the operation of the FC Act. However, all s 25(2) does is confer appellate jurisdiction on single judges and Full Courts to deal with applications for leave to appeal. Order 52 r 2AA prescribes, in my opinion unexceptionably, the mechanism that determines whether this jurisdiction will be exercised by a single judge, on the one hand, or a Full Court, on the other. As Buchanan J correctly observed in McDonald's Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No. 2) [2008] FCA 395 , referring to his Honour's earlier judgment in Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 47 , the provisions of O 52 r 2AA admit no debate about the existence of any such right of election. There is none.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">application for review of decision of the refugee review tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">where applicant did not attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">citizen of pakistan claiming fear of persecution on the basis of religion and political affiliation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">reason for decision the insufficiency of the information provided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FMCA 939">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">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="cp3.3">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="cp3.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">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="cp3.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">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="cp3.9">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="cp3.10">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="cp3.11">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="cp3.12">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="cp3.13">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="cp3.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 942" id="cs0">

56 Barely a week later, the defendant sought leave to appeal by way of notice of motion against Moore J's decision on the question of costs. In April 2009 Jagot J ( Croker v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 353) refused leave to appeal concurring with the approach taken by Moore J as to costs, stating at [16] "[t]his is a case where the proceeding should never have been brought". </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 55ZF Attorney-General may issue directions</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 55ZG Compliance with Legal Services Directions</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 56 Suits against the Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">challenge to decision refusing extension of time to pay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">discovery of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">information revealing course of investigation into taxpayer's affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">claim by commissioner for exemption from discovery under s. 16(2) and (3) of the income tax assessment act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">whether an officer in divulging the information would be acting "in the performance of any duty as an officer"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">whether "necessary for the purposes of carrying into effect the act"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">whether a statement of reasons under s. 13 of judicial review act a substitute for discovery.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">interlocutory orders for discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">whether appellate court should interfere with trial judge's exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[1986] FCA 368">principles applicable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">administrative decisions (judicial) review) act, 1977 , s.13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">request for supply of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">seizure by customs officers under s.203 customs act, 1901 of goods believed to be forfeited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">whether decision in connection with the investigation or prosecution of persons for any offences against a law of the commonwealth within sch.2(e)(i) of administrative decisions (judicial review) act or whether a decision that may result in the bringing of proceedings for recovery of penalties within sch.2(f).  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">customs act, 1901 , s.234(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">customs prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">whether criminal or civil proceeding  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">decisions to seize goods under customs act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">refusal to supply reasons for decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">whether decisions "in connection with investigation or prosecution of offences"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">whether decisions "that may result in proceedings for recovery of penalties".  customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">customs prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">whether criminal or civil proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s 13 , sched 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">customs act 1901 (cth), ss 203 , 234 . held: (1) per curiam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">the decisions to seize certain motor vehicles believed to be forfeited goods were not decisions to which sub-pars (e) and (f) of sched 2 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 apply.  (2) per pincus j, beaumont j concurring</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">regarding sub-par (e)(i) of the schedule, in this particular case it could not be said that the decisions bore the necessary degree of connection to any investigation or prosecution under the customs act 1901 . no doubt a prosecution may follow such seizure but it could not be said that the seizure had to do with the process of investigation and/or prosecution. however, it will depend upon the facts of each case.  furthermore, in respect of sub-par (f), for it to be said that the relevant decision "may result in the bringing of proceedings for the recovery of pecuniary penalties", it must appear that the decision to seize may cause the bringing of proceedings. in this case, whilst the decisions to seize may form part of a chain which may lead to the institution of such proceedings, one could not speak of the decisions in themselves as bringing about that consequence.  (3) per pincus j, beaumont j concurring, fox j not deciding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[1985] FCA 495">a person who contravenes s 234 of the customs act 1901 is guilty of an infringement of the criminal law rather than merely a breach of the civil law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">highway</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">inferences from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">intersection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">duty of drivers to exercise reasonable care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">duty to give way to vehicle on right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 38">road traffic regulations 1909 (n.s.w.), regs 67, 67a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1341" id="cs0">
 On 20 July 2006, a judge of the Court answered a preliminary question concerning the entitlement of Mr Churche to a statement of reasons pursuant to s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ('the Act') ( Churche v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (No 2) [2006] FCA 923). This is an application for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal from orders made by his Honour pursuant to that decision on 14 August 2006. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 28 Person affected by decision may obtain reasons for decision</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l5">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l6">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 19 Act not to apply in relation to certain decisions</title>
<title id="l7">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l8">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 19 Notice requiring appearance for examination</title>
<title id="l9">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l11">INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l12">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 13 Conditions on an authorisation</title>
<title id="l13">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 19 Conditions on a NOHC authorisation</title>
<title id="l14">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 25A Court power of disqualification</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 1100">mortgages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 1100">discharge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 1100">whether mortgagee's costs of defending suit to set aside mortgage were a contingent liability of the mortgagor secured by the mortgage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 1100">whether mortgagor obliged to provide security for contingent liability in order to obtain discharge.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 594">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 594">consideration of a separate question of the basis upon which an order for costs might be made on the application of the third respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 594">consideration of whether the costs of the proceedings incurred by the third respondent fall within the notion of "enforcement expenses" for the purposes of clause 20 of the mortgage entered into between the first respondent and the third respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 594">consideration of the principles to be applied in determining the basis upon which a mortgagee ought to have its costs as against the mortgagor of the proceedings having regard to the terms of the mortgage itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 35">corporate insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 35">consideration of whether particular arrangements for the transfer of trust property and the ultimate transfer of that trust property constitute transactions rendered voidable by operation of s 588fe of the corporations act 2001 (cth) and whether the transfer of the property is rendered void by operation of s 468 of the act  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 35">the interaction between s 90ac of the family law act 1975 (cth) and ss 588fa , 588fb and 588fda of the corporations act 2001 (cth)  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 35">whether the court should exercise its discretion under s 30ai of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) to receive further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 594" id="cs0">It follows that Ms Ng's declaration under clause 1.5(b) was incorrect as the liquidators and Riby (in liquidation) enjoyed "rights affecting the property" by reason of the disposition of the property to Ms Ng in the circumstances as found: Van Der Velde v Ng (No. 3) [2009] FCA 1563 and Ng v Van Der Velde [2011] FCAFC 35. It also follows that Ms Ng's declaration that she had not contravened the Corporations Act was incorrect. Ms Ng's declaration at 1.5(d) was incorrect by reason of the false answers she gave as to her bankruptcy and Shancom. For the same reasons Ms Ng's declaration at clause 1.5(e) was incorrect. By failing to tell Rams of the caveat of 14 September 2007 and failing to take steps to remove it and assert her absolute title to the property (as she contended in the proceedings later commenced by the applicants), Ms Ng failed to comply with clause 10 of the mortgage. Each of these matters placed Ms Ng in default for the purposes of clauses 18(b) and (c) of the mortgage from the outset of the grant of the mortgage as to the incorrect declarations and in default from the period when Ms Ng ought reasonably to have taken steps to seek to remove the caveat (for example, within one month of notice to her of the caveat).  Ms Ng did not appear at the trial. The procedural matters relating to the obligations the parties were required to discharge leading up to the trial and the events at trial are set out in Van Der Velde v Ng (No. 3) [2009] FCA 1563 and Ng v Van Der Velde [2011] FCAFC 35.  It is not relevant to recite in these reasons the precise content of each of the many contentions on the part of the applicants concerning the grounds upon which the various pleaded transactions were said to be voidable transactions. Those matters are set out in the reasons for judgment in Van Der Velde v Ng (No. 3) [2009] FCA 1563 having regard to the Third Further Amended Statement of Claim framing the various causes of action; the evidence going to those matters; the findings in the primary judgment; and, the reasons of the Full Court in Ng v Van Der Velde [2011] FCAFC 35. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 35" id="cs1"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 468 Avoidance of dispositions of property, attachments etc.</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 513A Winding up ordered by the Court</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588FE Voidable transactions</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588FF Courts may make orders about voidable transactions</title>
<title id="l6">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l7">FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 9 Transitional</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">review of decision of single judge of court of appeal refusing leave and dismissing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">leave to appeal from judgment consequent to springing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">long delay in giving discovery resulting in springing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">long delay in seeking to appeal from judgment consequent upon springing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">long delay in original action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] WASCA 101">dispute between former solicitors and client over unpaid fees and counsel fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] WASCA 205">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] WASCA 205">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] WASCA 205">appeal against refusal to extend time to comply with springing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] WASCA 205">previous appeal against imposition of same springing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] WASCA 205">judge on previous appeal entered judgment for respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] WASCA 205">matter finally determined by earlier appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">application for extension of time for compliance with bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">whether appeal not filed within time for compliance with bankruptcy notice a proceeding to set aside judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">not a proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">application dismissed.bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">application for extension of time for compliance with bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 78">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] WADC 172">appeal against spring order for discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] WADC 172">discretion to grant judgment when order not selfexecuting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 245">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 245">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 245">refusal to go behind judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 245">discretionary decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 245">error in law in reaching decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">bankruptcy notice based on default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">debts incurred by partner in a partnership where debtor only "silent partner"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">whether partnership in existence at time debts incurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">whether trial judge determined preliminary question of whether the present was an appropriate case to investigate whether true debt existed or determined the question whether bankruptcy notice based on true debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">no formal request for trial judge to decide preliminary question of existence of judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">whether failure to call full evidence can ground an appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">circumstances in which court will go behind judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">onus of proving existence of debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 222">whether creditor required to prove existence of entire debt upon which judgment founded.  partnership acts 1891-1965 (qld.) s.8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">leave to appeal from the decision of primary judge's refusal to adjourn bankruptcy petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">appellate court's review of primary judge's discretion refusing adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">general principles of review by appellate courts apply to bankruptcy proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">application of sub-s. 201(1) income tax assessment act 1936 to bankruptcy proceedings.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">judgment obtained by commissioner for tax owing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">whether sequestration order should have been made when tax appeals in supreme court against assessments were pending when petition for sequestration heard.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 5">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 5">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 5">judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 5">power of bankruptcy court to go behind judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 5">indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 5">whether liability before payment of principal debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 5">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), s. 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">vagueness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">uncertainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">contract capable of meaning distinguished from meaningless contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">commercial contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">"variations in supplier's costs".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1951] HCA 31">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1951] HCA 31">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1951] HCA 31">judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1951] HCA 31">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1951] HCA 31">power of court to go behind judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1951] HCA 31">bankruptcy act 1924-1950 (no. 37 of 1924</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1951] HCA 31">no. 80 of 1950), s. 56 (2) (a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">appeal from dismissal of an application by judgment debtor pursuant to s 459g of the corporations act 2001 (cth) to set aside creditor's statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">where judgment obtained by default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">whether primary judge erred in determining no "genuine dispute" within the meaning of s 469h(1)(a) of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">whether primary judge erred in concluding there was no offsetting claim within the meaning of s 459h(1)(b) of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1695">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1695">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1695">default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1695">whether court should go behind the judgment.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 169" id="cs0">24 In Richardson v Leonard Cohen  Co [2008] FCA 1392 Gilmour J considered a similar issue albeit in the context of the making of a sequestration order. At [12]-[14] Gilmour J summarised the relevant principles as follows:
 [12] The Court, considering the petition, may, in its discretion, accept a judgment as satisfactory proof, or not, of the petitioning creditor's debt. Such a judgment is prima facie evidence of the antecedent debt.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1695" id="cs1">In these preliminary proceedings, as Gilmore J stated in Richardson v Leonard Cohen  Co [2008] FCA 1392 at [14] , it is not necessary for the debtor to prove that he is " not, in truth and reality, indebted to the petitioning creditor . " What is required is that the debtor show (in the sense considered in Wolff v Donovan ) that there is " substantial reason for questioning whether there is ... a debt": Jooss v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation at [6] per North and Finkelstein JJ. It is necessary to determine whether "sufficient facts have been shown to suggest that an investigation into the judgment should be pursued" (Wolff v Donovan at [17]). Evidence before the Court
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 44 Conditions on which creditor may petition</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 52 Proceedings and order on creditor's petition</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1304">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1304">application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1304">allegations of failure properly to consider materials and submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1304">allegations of bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">application for protection visa by chinese nationals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">the decision of the refugee review tribunal affected by apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">also lack of satisfaction reached by the refugee review tribunal not lawful, but arbitrary and capricious.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s20/2002  appellant s106/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">temporary protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">where refugee review tribunal found that applicant was an unreliable witness and discounted evidence said to be corroborative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was affected by actual bias or by a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">distinction between discretionary decisions and decisions involving the finding of facts essential to the exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision evidenced an erroneous approach to the finding of jurisdictional facts.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">section 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">extent to which the content of the constitutional writs is affected by common law developments in administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">availability of constitutional writs in proceedings that include an appeal concerning related issues.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">unavailability of review of factual or evidentiary merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether relief available under migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ") or under the constitution , s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was not authorised by the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was marred by error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal would have made it.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">wednesbury unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">position of lay decision-maker faced with medical evidence of a responsible medical practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">irrationality of substituting lay theories for expert opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">discussion of error in interpretation of regulation which may have led to unreasonable conclusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">effect of finding unsupported by evidence.  immigration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">discussion of meaning of definition of "special need relative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">discussion of "compassionate ground ... to the effect that refusal ... would have caused extreme hardship or irreparable prejudice to an australian citizen"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">broad and generous construction of beneficial provisions in interests of citizens to be benefited and australia's good name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">migration act should not be construed as authorizing a decision upon an irrational basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">distinction between "extreme hardship" and "irreparable prejudice"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">need for right of independent appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 503">right of australian citizens to a genuine and fair application of provisions of the law made for their benefit.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">allegation of bias on part of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">no failure to consider integer of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">fact-finding is the task of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">no appellable error on the part of the federal magistrate  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">leave sought to raise new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">new grounds without merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1045">leave refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1045" id="cs0">Such observations do not preclude the prospect that fact-finding may in some cases expose a lack of impartiality and may involve jurisdictional error: NADH , supra. Allsop J there thus observed:

 [115] By and large fact-finding is a task within jurisdiction, though factual error is not necessarily mutually exclusive of jurisdictional error: ... Where fact-finding has been conducted in a manner which can be described, as here, as in substantial respects unreasoned, and mere assertion lacking rational or reasoned foundation, at times as plainly and ex facie wrong and as selective of material going one way, these considerations may found a conclusion that the posited fair-minded observer might, or indeed would, reasonably apprehend that the conclusions had been reached with a mind not open to persuasion and unable or unwilling to evaluate all the material fairly. ... [citations omitted]

Appl'd: MZYAA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1303 at [28] per Goldberg J. See also: NAOX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1056 at [40] to [44] [2009] FCA 1056 ; , 112 ALD 54 at 60 to 61 per Spender J. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 20 Reasonable compensation</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">griffith university v tang  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">exclusion of respondent from phd candidature programme conducted by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">where appellant is a body created by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">power of appellant to function as a university and to confer higher education awards derived from statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision to which the judicial review act 1991 (q) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision made under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">relevance of nature of relationship subsisting between parties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1661">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1661">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1661">appeals to federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1661">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 ("the act ") s 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1661">order of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1661">whether direction given pursuant to administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 s 33 a "decision" under the act .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">extension of time for filing evidence in opposition proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">whether "full and frank disclosure" of circumstances surrounding delay is imperative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">breadth of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">factors to be taken into account.   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">extension of time for filing evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">breadth of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">factors to be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 981">explanation of delay.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">duty to provide</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">whether implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">public service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">application for promotion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">appeal by unsuccessful applicant to public service board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">no duty to give reasons for dismissing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">relevance of statutory changes in administrative practice in other jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">public service act 1979 (n.s.w.), ss. 58, 65a(6), 116.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">application by prisoner for parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">opinion of parole board that information before it does not justify release on parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">application to the court for review of opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">whether opinion is a decision to which the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 applies.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth.)ss. 3, 5.  parole ordinance, 1976 (a.c.t.) s. 19  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">application by prisoner for parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">opinion of parole board that information before it did not justify release on parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">application to court for review of opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">whether opinion is decision to which administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) applies.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 18">parole ordinance 1976 (a.c.t.), s. 19. the applicant was a prisoner who applied to the parole board of the australian capital territory for release on parole. the parole board acted on information it had before it relating to the applicant's previous conduct and came to the opinion that the applicant should not be released on parole at the time of the application. the applicant applied to the court for the court to review the decision of the parole board under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 . the question for the court was whether the forming of the board's opinion was a decision to which the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 applied.  held: (1) the word "decision" in the act connotes an ultimate or operative determination rather than a reference to an adjudication or determination of issues arising in the course of making such an ultimate or operative determination.  director-general of social services v. chaney [1980] fca 87 ; (1980), 47 flr 80 , applied.  (2) where a statute is but one of a number of statutes addressed to the same general subject matter, words common to them, especially words of primacy, generally should be construed similarly, not disparately, provided that meaning is one which the words may reasonably bear according to their context in each statute.  hearing  sydney, 1981, february 5-6; march 5. 5:3:1981</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">application for review from decision of director-general of social services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">appeal to federal court of australia from "decision" of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">competence of appeal from preliminary ruling of tribunal that it has jurisdiction to review decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">competence of appeal from an interim order of tribunal staying operation of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">what constitutes a "decision" of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">power to make interim order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">licence for commercial television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">prescribed interest held by company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">acquisition of shares by another company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">inquiry by australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to investigate matters relevant to inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">contraventions of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">acquisition of beneficial entitlement to prescribed interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 25, 91, 91a, 92 (1) (a), (2), (3) (a), 92f.  administrative bodies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">supervisory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to investigate matters relevant to inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to summon evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">cross-examination of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 16 (1) (c), 25, 92f (4), (4a), 106a.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] ADO 7" id="cs0">Subsequently directions were made for the filing of evidence --- following the approach the subject of review in Somnomed Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCA 765 , [2006] 69 IPR 237.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] ADO 8" id="cs1">Subsequently directions were made for the filing of evidence --- following the approach the subject of review in Somnomed Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCA 765 , [2006] 69 IPR 237.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 33 Procedure of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l5">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 Applications for review of conduct related to making of decisions</title>
<title id="l6">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l7">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 5 Associated applications</title>
<title id="l8">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 15 Who may be granted a patent?</title>
<title id="l9">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 36 Other applications by eligible persons</title>
<title id="l10">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l11">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 33 Application accepted or rejected</title>
<title id="l12">PATENTS REGULATIONS 1991 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 1130">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 1130">application for order under s 1322(4)(a) and (d) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) extending the time for the company to give notice of share placement in accordance with s 708a(5) and (6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 1130">whether failure to issue notice due to inadvertence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 1130">whether substantial injustice to any party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 660">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 660">application for an order under s 1322(4)(d) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) extending the time for a company to give notice of share placement in accordance with disclosure requirements of s 708a(5) and (6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">application to extend time to lodge supplementary bidder's statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">application to extend time to further vary bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">extent of court's powers to make orders under s 1322(4)(d) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">orders made as asked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">failure to comply with time limit in relation to placement of stapled securities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">failure to comply with time limit was inadvertent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">unlikely to be any substantial injustice to any party in dispensing with the time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1316">applied proviso that any party who later claims to have suffered a substantial injustice by reason of the orders has liberty to apply to discharge or vary them within a limited time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">offers of securities requiring disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">securities issued without disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">disclosure obligation in respect of subsequent offers for sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">securities quoted on asx</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">issuer fails to lodge notice with asx within five business days</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">notice later lodged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">persons offering for sale exposed to liability for non-disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">evidence shows that lateness of notice did not cause any material matter to be withheld from the market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1438">validating orders warranted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 1438" id="cs0">23 In this respect, the circumstances of this case are relevantly the same as (or similar to) those considered in a number of earlier cases including, in particular, Re Charter Hall Ltd [2007] FCA 1316 , Re Diversified United Investment Ltd [2008] FCA 720 , Re A J Lucas Group Ltd [2008] FCA 999 , Re Chameleon Mining NL [2009] NSWSC 660 and Re Chalice Gold Mines Ltd [2009] FCA 1236. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 1220" id="cs1">28 The current situation is close to that dealt with by Gyles J in Re Charter Hall [2007] FCA 1316 although there is one important difference; likewise the decision of White J in Re Chameleon Mining NL [2009] NSWSC 660 which generally followed Charter Hall is to similar effect: cf Re Chalice Gold Mines Ltd [2009] FCA 1236. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 111AS Exemptions by regulations</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 111AT Exemptions by ASIC</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 340 Exemption orders--companies, registered schemes and disclosing entities</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 341 Exemption orders--class orders for companies, registered schemes and disclosing entities</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 674 Continuous disclosure--listed disclosing entity bound by a disclosure requirement in market listing rules</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 708A Sale offers that do not need disclosure</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1322 Irregularities</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>