Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">application by contributory for order terminating winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">sole director failed to co-operate with liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">sole director unable to distinguish company's interests from his own</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">liquidator lacking information upon which to form view of solvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">sole director's bald assertion of solvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">no external assessment of solvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 160">considerations of commercial morality preclude termination of winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 281">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 281">liquidators in creditors' voluntary winding up appoint themselves as voluntary administrators, with leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 281">deed of company arrangement executed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 281">whether execution of a deed automatically terminates winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 281">whether court should terminate winding up under s 482</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 281">whether deed releases debts owing to secured and related party creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 281">relevance of potential tax losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">application to wind up company under s459p of the corporations act following statutory demand where no application to set aside on basis of genuine dispute as to claimed debt or offsetting claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">resultant presumption of insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">rebuttal to presumption of insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">borrowing capacity to meet current liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">bank loans as non-current or current liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">verification of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">independent accountants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">sufficiency of accounting records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">appointment of an administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 756">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 756">administration under deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 756">whether creditors' resolution approving deed extinguishes existing winding up in insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 756">principles applied by court in considering application to terminate winding-up after deed of company arrangement has been approved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 494">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 494">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 494">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 494">application to terminate winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 494">evidence required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">application for termination of winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">whether solvency established or sufficiently assured</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">adequacy of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">proposal to postpone but not subordinate related party debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">proposed loan from related party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">availability of funds from wholly owned subsidiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">failure to notify contributories and creditors of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">interests of existing and future creditors and contributories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 970">other relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 196">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 196">application for termination of winding up under s 482 of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 196">winding up proceedings instituted after applicant failed to either contest or comply with statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 196">winding up proceedings not contested by applicant as a result of legal and accounting advice received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 196">whether solvency established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 196">consideration of whether termination should be ordered having regard to public interest and commercial morality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 196">relief refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 197" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 970" id="cs1">In Re King  I Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2085 , McKerracher J amplified to the above, observing that:

 [5] It is necessary to take into account the broad interests of both present and future prospective creditors, contributories and the 'public interest including matters of commercial morality' (see Mercy  Sons Pty Ltd v Wanari Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 756 ; (2000) 157 FLR 107 ; Re Nardell Coal Corp Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 281 ; (2004) 182 FLR 290 and Re Data Homes Pty Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 22). [6] As to more specific matters, as future creditors are concerned, an important consideration arises if the proposal for termination of the winding up preserves existing debt. If that is so, it is necessary to ascertain what arrangements exist and whether those arrangements are binding for the subordination of claimants of such debt to newly incurred debts and/or whether there is any proposal to capitalise debts: see Re Data Homes [1972] 2 NSWLR 22 at 27 and Re Nardell [2004] NSWSC 281 ; 182 FLR 290 at 78. In this application, there are two possible debts requiring consideration of this nature.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1144" id="cs2">As did McKerracher J in The King  I Pty Ltd, in the matter of The King  I Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2085 , I accept as relevant factors those factors identified by these authorities and others as follows:
(1) The granting of a stay is a discretionary matter, and there is a clear onus on the applicant to make out a positive case for a stay. (2) There must be service of notice of the application for a stay on all creditors and contributories, and proof of this. (3) The nature and extent of the creditors must be shown, and whether or not all debts have been or will be discharged.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSCA 179" id="cs3">The same applies to a company which is technically solvent but likely to become insolvent. [20]

 The importance of an applicant demonstrating the solvency of a company, and of the Court having regard to the public interest --- and to the interrelated issue of commercial morality --- has often been emphasised. In recent times, Hammerschlag J said this in Gematech Pty Ltd v Bardi Investments Pty Ltd : [21]

 [24] The approach to be taken by the Court to applications such as the present, and the factors to which the Court may and should have regard, have been the subject of consideration in the authorities: see Re Telescriptor Syndicate Ltd [1903] 2 Ch 174 ; Re Mascot Home Furnishers Pty Ltd [1970] VicRp 78 ; [1970] VR 593 ; Re Data Homes Pty Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 22 ; Re Warbler Pty Ltd (1982) 6 ACLR 526 ; Dubolo Pty Ltd v Codrington Investment Corporation Pty (1998) 26 ACSR 723 ; Re Intag International Ltd (in Liq); Westpac Banking Corp v Intag International Ltd [1999] NSWSC 645 ; Mercy  Sons Pty Ltd v Wanari Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 756 ; (2000) 35 ACSR 70 ; Anderson v Palmer [2002] NSWSC 192 ; Re Nardell Coal Corporation Pty Ltd (2004) 49 ACSR 110 ; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Biosolids Management Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 272 ; Metledge v Bambakit Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] NSWSC 160 ; McConnochie v Lopez [2006] WASC 206 ; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Giumar Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCA 101 ; Re The King  I Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2085. [25] Relevantly, for present purposes, two things are clear. [26] Firstly, the solvency of the Company is to be demonstrated by the applicants who bear the onus to do so by leading the 'fullest and best' evidence of the company's financial position: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Begonia (1993) 11 ACSR 609 .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 196" id="cs4">

24 The approach to be taken by the Court to applications such as the present, and the factors to which the Court may and should have regard, have been the subject of consideration in the authorities: see Re Telescriptor Syndicate Ltd [1903] 2 Ch. 174 ; Re Mascot Home Furnishers Pty Ltd [1970] VicRp 78 ; [1970] VR 593 ; Re Data Homes Pty Ltd [1972] 2 NSWLR 22 ; Re Warbler Pty Ltd (1982) 6 ACLR 526 ; Dubolo Pty Ltd v Codrington Investment Corporation Pty (1998) 26 ACSR 723 ; Re Intag International Ltd (in Liq); Westpac Banking Corp v Intag International Limited [1999] NSWSC 645 ; Mercy  Sons Pty Ltd v Wanari Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 756 ; (2000) 35 ACSR 70 ; Anderson v Palmer [2002] NSWSC 192 ; Re Nardell Coal Corporation Pty Ltd (2004) 49 ACSR 110 ; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Biosolids Management Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 272 ; Metledge v Bambakit Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] NSWSC 160 ; McConnochie v Lopez [2006] WASC 206 ; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Giumar Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] FCA 101 ; Re The King  I Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 2085. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 435A Object of Part</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 436B Liquidator may appoint administrator</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 439A Administrator to convene meeting and inform creditors</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 445F Meeting of creditors to consider proposed variation or termination of deed</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 482 Power to stay or terminate winding up</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">service of originating process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">service outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">application for leave to serve outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">whether considerations concerning australia's international relations relevant to grant of leave to serve out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">federal court rules 1979 (cth) o 8 r 2practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">application for leave to serve outside the jurisdiction where final injunctive relief sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">statutory public interest injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">relevance of potential unenforceability of injunctive relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">futility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 571">the case concerns a document entitled 'cole inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 571">draft statement of contrition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 571">andrew lindberg.' the document became exhibit 665 in the commission of inquiry which is being conducted by commissioner cole ('the inquiry') under the royal commissions act 1902 ('rca').</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">separate decision of questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">where application related to distribution of vodka product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">where claims of misleading conduct, false representations and breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">where cross-claim related to ownership of trademarks used in distribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">where cross-claimant not involved in application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">where no relief sought against respondent in cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 14">whether cross-claim should be determined separately and before application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">policy for the planning of national and arterial roads systems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">national capital plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">national capital planning authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">commonwealth action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action by authority prohibited under environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action includes making of amendments to plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action will have an actual or likely impact on environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">no finding of facts by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action is a governmental authorisation and excluded from definition of action under the act practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">federal court rules o 29 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">formulation of separate or preliminary questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">difficulties associated with procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">human rights and equal opportunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">federal magistrate ordered separate questions for decision in the proceeding after another judge had conducted a trial but resigned from the court before giving judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">mixed questions of fact and law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">federal magistrate answered separate questions in the absence of any findings of fact or agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">answers hypothetical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">error in seeking to answer questions without first making factual findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">nature of appropriate orders in the circumstances considered discrimination legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">indirect discrimination on ground of disability alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">appellant serving a sentence of incarceration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">transport and accommodation as "services" in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">requirement or condition in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">nature of "services" discussed costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 163">appropriate costs order in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1002">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1002">power of the court to decide any question separate from the trial in the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1002">demurrer not available in the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1002">dangers that stem from the separate determination of questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1002">circumstances of the case render separate determination of questions appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1002">federal court rules o 29 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">insurance companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">disqualified persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">australian prudential regulation authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">power to disqualify where person not presently employed in relevant position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">deterrence an irrelevant consideration in exercise of discretion  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">reviewable decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">existence of other review or appeal rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">whether adequate provision made by other law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 480">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 518">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 518">whether orders should be made to determine certain separate and preliminary questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 518">insufficiency of factual foundation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 518">orders refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] FCA 674">(g) if a step in the manufacture of the goods has been carried out outside australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] FCA 674">whether the manufacturing and quality control procedures used in the manufacture of the goods are acceptable; and  (h) if the goods have been manufactured in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] FCA 674">whether the goods have been manufactured in accordance with part 4 ; and</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">regie nationale des usines renault sa v zhang  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">allegedly negligent design and manufacture overseas of motor vehicle by foreign company registered, but not carrying on business, in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">continuing damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action commenced in new south wales supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">supreme court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether exercise of discretion miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">relationship between supreme court rules authorising orders declining jurisdiction and judicial decisions on forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether supreme court a clearly inappropriate forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">relevance of circumstance that foreign law is to be applied as the lex causae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether discretion to grant stay of proceedings should be re-exercised.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">allegedly negligent design and manufacture overseas of motor vehicle by foreign company registered, but not carrying on business, in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">continuing damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether french law would be the lex causae applied in a trial in new south wales -whether australian common law should recognise the lex loci delicti as the substantive law to be applied in actions for torts committed in a foreign law area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether the "double actionability" rule applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether a single choice of law rule should be adopted consistently in australia in respect of both international and intranational torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether "flexible exception" applies to recognition of lex causae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether public policy exceptions applicable to lex causae .  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">requirements as to pleadings of applicant on a stay motion seeking to rely upon a foreign lex causae .  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">cause of action arising out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action brought in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.30">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">plaintiff alleges defective design and manufacture of the motor vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.31">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">defendants not present in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.32">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">plaintiff relies on "long arm" provision in supreme court rules and damage in jurisdiction to found action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.33">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">application by defendants for stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.34">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">applicable law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.35">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.36">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">forum non conveniens .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">tepko pty limited v water board  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">negligent misstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">statutory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">no statutory obligation to answer queries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">estimate sought and "upper limit" figure provided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">whether duty of care owed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">knowledge of serious purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">known reliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">assumption of responsibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">whether appreciation of consequences of error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">whether reasonable to rely on "ball-park" figure.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">separate trial of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">need for clear justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">difficulties of separate trial of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">use of books of documents where status and relevance in the trial are uncertain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">identification of documents in evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">appeal from decision on application for review of decision by anti-dumping authority.   customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">whether apparent cotton policy of pakistani government amounts to a "subsidy, bounty, reduction or remission of freight or other financial assistance" within the meaning of s 269tj(1) customs act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">whether expression "subsidy, bounty, reduction or remission of freight or other financial assistance" requires that the class of assistance must result from the expenditure or foregoing of revenue by the government of the exporting country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">meaning of "prescribed assistance" (s 269tj(5) , (7))</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">whether s 269tj(10) is an extension of the term "paid" only or to the term "financial assistance" as well</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">meaning of "bounty".   public international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">whether international agreements and codes to which australia is a signatory may be referred to in interpreting municipal law dealing with same subject matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">whether, in examining municipal legislation which is intended to implement international agreements, weight should be given to the construction the international community would attribute to the relevant instrument or concept</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">principles discussed.   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1188">whether desirable to isolate preliminary questions of law when factual foundation for determination of such question not resolved.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">declaration against commissioner of taxation negating party's liability to pay a particular tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">declaration that particular tax not paid on behalf of plaintiff by party other than commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">commencement of action before issue of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">no act of commissioner impugned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">whether commissioner proper party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">whether jurisdiction to grant declaration against commissioner excluded by taxing statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">petroleum resource rent tax assessment act 1987 (cth), ss. 69 , 69a, 106 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1993] HCA 60">taxation administration act 1953 (cth), pt ivc.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel used "in mining operations" or "other operations connected with mining"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether generation of electricity and reticulation of water in towns adjacent to mining sufficiently connected with mining operations.  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel for use by purchaser "at residential premises"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether use confined to use of the purchaser.  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel for use "at a hospital"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether, where electricity is generated, the generation has to be on or close to the hospital grounds.  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">diesel fuel rebate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">rebate allowable where fuel for use "in primary production" or in operations connected with "the cultivation or gathering in of crops"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether generation of electricity and reticulation of water in agricultural areas is sufficiently connected with primary production operations.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">jurisdiction of court on appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">whether all facts being agreed the question whether a case falls within or without statutory provision is a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">cited from="[1993] FCA 187">question whether sufficient connexion exists involves a question of fact and degree not conferring jurisdiction on court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action brought in australian state for damages for negligent accounting advice given in foreign country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">loss suffered there and in australian state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">place of commission of tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">appropriate forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">cause of action arising out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">greek island cruise booked in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">ticket not given to passenger until commencement of cruise in greece</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">foreign jurisdiction clause on ticket</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">whether term of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">action brought in new south wales for injury sustained by passenger on cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">application by defendant for stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">forum non conveniens.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">case stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">publication of newspaper articles concerning pleasure cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">whether publication of articles within trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">associated jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">action for defamation  trade practices act 1974 ss. 6 , 52 (1), 75b, 82  federal court rules order 29 r.2  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">case stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">publication of newspaper articles concerning pleasure cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">whether publication of articles misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">common law action for defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">associated jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.14">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 6 , 52 (1), 75b, 82</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.15">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">federal court rules , o.29, r.2.  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.16">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.17">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">common law action for defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.18">cited from="[1983] FCA 66">same substratum of facts as trade practices act action. the applicant conducted a christmas holiday cruise from fremantle. at its conclusion, articles about the cruise appeared in a newspaper of which the first respondent was the publisher and the proprietor and the second respondent was the printer. the articles were in large part, but not entirely, critical of the cruise. the applicant commenced proceedings alleging that the publication and printing of certain parts of the articles constituted conduct that was misleading or deceptive within s. 52 of the trade practices act 1974 and alleging that the respondents had defamed the applicant in the course of its business. a case was stated seeking the determination of several questions relating to the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the causes of action pleaded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">mines and minerals (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">exploration licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">grant of licence "from" specified day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">when period commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">application to be made not later than one month before expiry of licence or renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether clear month</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">mining act, 1906 (as amended) (n.s.w.), ss. 46 (3), 83b (13).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">supreme court (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">equitable jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">declaration of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">extent of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether mining act, 1906 (n.s.w.) qualifies power to grant remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">equity act, 1901 (as amended) (n.s.w.), s. 10.*  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">commencement of licence "from" specified day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.17">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">when term commences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.18">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">renewal of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.19">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">application to be made "not later than one month before expiry" of licence or renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.20">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether clear month</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.21">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">interpretation act, 1897 (n.s.w.), s. 35 (ii).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">money lenders (w.a.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">defined inter alia as "every person who lends money at a rate of interest exceeding 12 1/2% p.a."</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">whether single transaction suffices to satisfy definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">provision for registration of money lenders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">on non-compliance with formalities no security to be "enforceable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">no money lender to lend at rate of interest exceeding prescribed rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">construction of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">whether provisions limited to money lenders other than those who are such by being persons who lend money at a rate of interest exceeding 12 1/2% p.a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">whether "enforceable" limited to judicial or curial remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">application by borrower in forbidden transaction for specific relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">no provision in legislation for relief sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">whether borrower must be prepared to refund moneys borrowed as condition of grant of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.12">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">money lenders act 1912-1948 (no. 65 of 1912</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.13">cited from="[1958] HCA 55">no. 54 of 1948) (w.a.) ss. 3, 5, 9, 11a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 69">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 69">trial of separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 69">case management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 69">discretion to make further directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 69">whether leave to appeal should be granted from a decision to order the trial of separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 197">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 197">allegations of indirect discrimination (three occasions) and direct discrimination under age discrimination act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 197">application for appointment of court expert</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 197">application deferred to close of pleadings and discovery.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">application for separate trial of issues under o 32 r 4 rules of the supreme court 1971 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">issues to be framed as questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">factors to consider</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">overlap of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">whether the court will be determining issues on a hypothetical basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">whether will reduce issues in dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.7">citing from="[2010] WASC 137">whether gives rise to significant contested factual issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">7, 9, 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">15, 19</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">22, 26, 28</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">29 october 2009;</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">7, 9, 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">15, 19</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">22, 26, 28</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">29 october 2009; 9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.10">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">10, 12</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.11">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">13 november 2009 date of judgment : 12 march 2010 case may be cited as : ambridge investments pty ltd v baker  ors medium neutral citation : [2010] vsc 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.12">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.13">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">definition of "joint venture"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.14">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">conduct giving rise to implied agreement of joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.15">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in negotiation towards a joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.16">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in a joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.17">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">statute of frauds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.18">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">s.126 instruments act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.19">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">no acquisition or disposition of land under joint venture agreement.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.20">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">entitlement to equitable relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.21">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">discretionary factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.22">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">conduct alleged not sufficiently related to plaintiff's cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.23">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">claim for a declaration not a claim for equitable relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.24">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in negotiation towards a joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.25">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in a joint venture.  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.26">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">alleged detriment out of proportion to relief sought.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.27">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">admissions by conduct in a civil proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.28">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">adoption of company accounts by directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.29">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">conduct giving rise to implied agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.30">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">admissibility and use of post contractual conduct.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.31">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">order 18 of supreme court (general civil procedure) rules 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.32">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">representative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.33">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">whether applies to trust property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.34">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">prosecution of proceeding by plaintiff not in a representative capacity.  trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.35">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">creation of express trust by words and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">high court and federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">order for separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">o 29 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">questions of construction, validity and power to provide for releases by creditors of third parties in deed under corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">factors to consider in ordering separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">whether questions would be hypothetical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">nature of evidence to be led by parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">importance of the court ensuring efficient use of time and minimising costs in litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">full hearing of all issues at trial including those associated with the separate questions would involve substantial costs that may be avoided by ordering separate determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">public interest in the prompt determination of questions of administrators' and creditors' rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">separate questions are self-contained questions of construction and statutory interpretation not calling for extensive evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">answers to questions may provide definitive answer to one substantial element of controversy   high court and federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">s 25(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">whether separate questions should be reserved for consideration by a full court sitting in the original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">importance of minimising potential for delay and expense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">utility of separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">public interest in the prompt determination of questions concerning administrators' and creditors' rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.23">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">reserving questions for consideration by a full court will ensure expeditious resolution of separate questions    corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.24">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.25">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">deeds of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.26">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">pt 5.3a corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.27">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">questions of construction and validity of deed under pt 5.3a to be decided on a separate question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.28">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">clause providing that upon payment under deed creditors release third parties and other creditors from liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.29">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">clauses prohibiting, or providing moratorium inhibiting, creditors from pursuing rights against third parties including statutory rights to enforce charges over insurance money payable in respect of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.30">citing from="[2009] FCA 784">power under pt 5.3a for deed of company arrangement to provide for creditors to release third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">accident compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">workplace stress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">psychological condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">impairment assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">deemed serious injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">negligence action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">application to amend statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">opposed as introducing a new or separate injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.8">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">matter to be dealt with as a pleading dispute rather than as a separate question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.9">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">arguable that amendment would not introduce a new or separate injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.10">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">alleged prejudice to defendant as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.11">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">any prejudice insufficient to warrant refusal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.12">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">amendment allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.13">citing from="[2008] VSC 398">accident compensation act 1985 ss 5 , 82 , 91 , 93 , 98c , 103 , 104b , 134ab .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1234">i have inspected the six documents that were said to relate to the iron filings claim. my inspection of awb's documents revealed a further four documents that fall within this category and are still the subject of a privilege claim. i am satisfied that these 10 documents are not privileged, as the documents were brought into existence in furtherance of an improper and dishonest purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1234">inflating the prices of contracts a1670 and a1680 so as to extract payments out of the united nations' escrow account that would then be utilised, in part, to satisfy a compensation claim by gbi. the evidence establishes to the requisite standard that the transaction was deliberately and dishonestly structured by awb and gbi so as to misrepresent the true nature and purpose of the trucking fees and to work a trickery on the united nations. it would be contrary to public policy for the privilege to enure in communications of this kind.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1999">i have inspected the six documents that were said to relate to the iron filings claim. my inspection of awb's documents revealed a further four documents that fall within this category and are still the subject of a privilege claim. i am satisfied that these 10 documents are not privileged, as the documents were brought into existence in furtherance of an improper and dishonest purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1999">inflating the prices of contracts a1670 and a1680 so as to extract payments out of the united nations' escrow account that would then be utilised, in part, to satisfy a compensation claim by gbi. the evidence establishes to the requisite standard that the transaction was deliberately and dishonestly structured by awb and gbi so as to misrepresent the true nature and purpose of the trucking fees and to work a trickery on the united nations. it would be contrary to public policy for the privilege to enure in communications of this kind.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 69" id="cs0">In AWB Limited v Cole [No 2] [2006] FCA 913 ; (2006) 233 ALR 453 at 460-463 [26] - [40], Young J reviewed the authorities from which (without reciting the authorities to which his Honour referred) the following principles can be distilled:
(1) As a general rule the starting point is that all issues of fact and law should be determined at the one time. (2) A party seeking the determination of separate questions must satisfy the Court that it is "just and convenient" for the order to be made. The order must be made on concrete facts, either established or agreed, for the purpose of quelling a controversy between the parties so as to produce a conclusive or final judicial decision on the issue, which is of a real, not hypothetical, importance to the determination of the controversy.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] QLAC 2" id="cs1">[12] One reason why this consideration is relevant is that, where there is a lack of agreement about the facts, there is an increased risk of an appeal from the preliminary determination. [5] The learned member did not err by taking it into account when deciding how the discretion should be exercised.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 197" id="cs2">The cases that are set out in the decision of Young J in AWB Ltd v Honourable Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole (No 2) [2006] FCA 913 at [27] in dealing with a similar provision of the Federal Court Rules , make clear that the purpose of the use of the procedure is to attempt to quell the controversy between the parties by facilitating a conclusive or final judicial decision based on concrete facts. The facts can be agreed or they can be ascertained as part of the separate decision or separate question process but the purpose of embarking upon the process is to finally determine the rights of the parties in respect of the controversy that is before the Court. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] SASC 206" id="cs3">Corporation of the City of Enfield v Development Assessment Commission [2000] HCA 5 ; (2000) 199 CLR 135 , distinguished. Baker v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) [2005] SASC 81 ; (2005) 91 SASR 167 ; Duke Group Ltd (in liq) v Alamain Investments Ltd (2003) 232 LSJS 58 ; Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 ; Attorney-General v Huber (1971) 2 SASR 142 , discussed. Downs v Williams [1971] HCA 45 ; (1971) 126 CLR 61 ; Earl of Oxford's Case [1615] EngR 2 ; (1615) 1 Rep Ch 1 ; 21 ER 485 ; Gee v Pritchard [1818] EngR 605 ; (1818) 2 Swans 402 ; 36 ER 670 ; Batemans's Bay Local Aboriginal Land Council v The Aboriginal Community Benefit Fund Pty Ltd [1998] HCA 49 ; (1998) 194 CLR 247 ; Cooney v The Council of the Municipality of Ku-ring-gai [1963] HCA 47 ; (1963) 114 CLR 582 ; Langman v Handover [1929] HCA 42 ; (1929) 43 CLR 334 ; Mayfair Trading Co Pty Ltd v Dreyer (1958) 101 CLR 428 ; AWB Ltd v Cole [2006] FCA 913 ; (2006) 233 ALR 453 ; H Stanke  Sons v O'Meara [2007] SASC 246 ; (2007) 98 SASR 450 ; Hall v City of Burnside and Ors (No 9) [2008] SASC 361 ; Ilic v The City of Adelaide [2010] SASC 139 ; Pidoto v Victoria [1943] HCA 37 ; (1943) 68 CLR 87 , considered. WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED

"means of access"

 TAVITIAN v COMMISSIONER OF HIGHWAYS  ANOR
 [2010] SASC 206

 Land and Valuation Division: Civil

 KOURAKIS J: The plaintiff in these proceedings, Mr Tavitian, challenges the validity of a recommendation made by the defendant, the Commissioner of Highways (the Commissioner), that the Governor proclaim a portion of Sturt Highway which runs along one of the boundaries of land owned by Mr Tavitian in the hundred of Nuriootpa (the Nuriootpa land). The Nuriootpa land runs along the eastern verge of the Sturt Highway between Gawler and Nuriootpa. Since that pronouncement, courts have repeatedly emphasised the statutory nature of the power. [53] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] WASC 137" id="cs4">4 In AWB Ltd v Cole (No 2) [2006] FCA 913 ; 233 ALR 453 Young J reviewed the authorities concerning O 29 r 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules which provides that the court may make orders for the decision of any question separately from any other question, whether before, at, or after any other trial. In City of Swan v Lehman Brothers Australia Ltd [2009] FCA 784 ; (2009) 73 ACSR 86 , Rares J at [27] in turn summarised the principles extracted from the relevant authorities by Young J as follows:

 (1) As a general rule the starting point is that all issues of fact and law should be determined at the one time. (2) A party seeking the determination of separate questions must satisfy the court that it is 'just and convenient' for the order to be made.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 59" id="cs5">This is so because the grant of a declaration is not the exercise of jurisdiction which is "truly equitable, it is merely statutory. If this be so, unclean hands is no defence to any merely statutory remedy". [47]
71 In AWB Ltd v Cole and Anor (No 2), [48] Young J expressed the position in the following terms:

 It is a common misconception that a declaration is an equitable remedy. It is not; it is a statutory remedy that is conferred in terms emphasising that its grant or refusal is within the discretion of the court: see Tito v Waddell (No 2) [1977] Ch 106 at 259; 3 All ER 129 at 256; 2 WLR 496 at 636; Mayfair trading C Pty Ltd v Dreyer [1958] HCA 55 ; [1958] 101 CLR 428 at 454; [1958] HCA 55 ; [1959] ALR 104 at 117 per Dixon CJ; and RP Meagher, J Heydon and M Leeming, Equity: Doctrines and Remedies , 4 th ed, Butterworths, 2002, at [19-159
 While the refusal of declaratory relief on discretionary grounds will always be heavily dependent on the facts of the particular case, the discretion must be exercised within a framework of relevant legal principle. The cases afford guidance as to the way in which the discretion is to be exercised.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 784" id="cs6">In AWB Limited v Cole [No 2] [2006] FCA 913 ; (2006) 233 ALR 453 at 460-463 [26] - [40] , Young J reviewed the authorities from which (without reciting the authorities to which his Honour referred) I have taken the following principles:
 (1) As a general rule the starting point is that all issues of fact and law should be determined at the one time. (2) A party seeking the determination of separate questions must satisfy the Court that it is "just and convenient" for the order to be made. The order must be made on concrete facts, either established or agreed, for the purpose of quelling a controversy between the parties so as to produce a conclusive or final judicial decision on the issue, which is of a real, not hypothetical, importance to the determination of the controversy.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 398" id="cs7">No order under r 47.04 for the trial of a preliminary question has been made. [6] The authorities indicate that extreme caution should be exercised before any question is isolated for preliminary determination, a fortiori where the question is one of fact or mixed fact and law. [7] As will become apparent, I consider that the present question is one of mixed fact and law. To the extent that the question involves issues of fact, it may in any event be inappropriate for a judge to decide those issues, because the proceeding remains fixed for trial by jury. [8] On the other hand, some or all of the factual issues involved may not be able to be referred to a jury, because s 134AB(23) of the Act provides that a jury must not be informed that any injury in respect of which the proceeding has been brought has been deemed, found or required to be found, to be a serious injury.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1234" id="cs8">AWB's second further amended application also sought declarations relating to the construction and validity of the Amending Act. In addition, AWB sought a declaration that the exercise of powers by the Commissioner under s 6AA(2) of the RCA, while these proceedings are pending before this Court, would constitute a contempt of Court, and injunctions restraining the Commissioner from making a decision under s 6AA(2) of the RCA. No live issues arise concerning these claims for relief: see AWB Ltd v Honourable Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole (No 2) [2006] FCA 913. Neither AWB nor the Commonwealth put any submissions to me, whether orally or in writing, concerning these claims for relief. It is unnecessary to address them further.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1999" id="cs9">AWB's second further amended application also sought declarations relating to the construction and validity of the Amending Act. In addition, AWB sought a declaration that the exercise of powers by the Commissioner under s 6AA(2) of the RCA, while these proceedings are pending before this Court, would constitute a contempt of Court, and injunctions restraining the Commissioner from making a decision under s 6AA(2) of the RCA. No live issues arise concerning these claims for relief: see AWB Ltd v Honourable Terence Rhoderic Hudson Cole (No 2) [2006] FCA 913. Neither AWB nor the Commonwealth put any submissions to me, whether orally or in writing, concerning these claims for relief. It is unnecessary to address them further. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 10 Rights conferred by this Act to be additional to other rights</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 16 Powers of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of applications for order of review</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 306 Review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 </title>
<title id="l8">ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 2 Power to summon witnesses and take evidence</title>
<title id="l9">ROYAL COMMISSIONS ACT 1902 - SECT 6AA Legal professional privilege</title>
<title id="l10">ROYAL COMMISSIONS AMENDMENT ACT 2006 (NO. 52, 2006) </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l12">Mining Act 1906 No 49 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">application for judicial review of decision by a delegate of the native title registrar to register an indigenous land use agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">whether it was part of delegate's function to decide if agreement presented was an indigenous land use agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">whether conclusion that agreement was an indigenous land use agreement was amenable to judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">whether there was no evidence or other material to justify the delegate's registration decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">whether failure by delegate to consider relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">whether agreement did not make lawful provision for cultural heritage duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1469">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 667">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 667">s 43 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 667">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 667">circumstances justifying departure from the general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">s 43 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">circumstances justifying departure from the general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">public interest litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">held: unsuccessful appellant ordered to pay a percentage of each respondent's costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 46">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 46">application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1997 (cth) to review decision of native title registrar as under s 190a of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 46">registrar decided to place application for determination of native title on register of native title claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 46">application to review decision unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 46">whether public interest or public importance warrants departure from ordinary rule as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 46">relevance of s 85a of native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">application under s.82 and accrued jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">judgment in favour of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">form of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">whether injunctive relief appropriate  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">applicant unsuccessful in many of the issues raised by him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">whether entitled to costs of the action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">award of costs in discretion of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">summary of principles upon which discretion exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">settlement of discharged members of forces on land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">administration of scheme by closer settlement board (tas.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">dealings between settler and board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">whether giving rise to contractual rights in settler</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">"capital cost to the board of the holding at the time of allotment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">costs in supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">successful defendant raised technical defences on which he did not subsequently rely or need to rely</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">appeal to high court by unsuccessful plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">whether respondent precluded from challenging order below as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">commonwealth and state war service land settlement agreement act 1945 (no. 36 of 1945) (tas.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1956] HCA 48">war service land settlement act 1950 (no. 82 of 1950) (tas.), s. 37.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1154">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1154">costs on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1154">whether provisions of native title act 1993 (cth) particularly s 85a can be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1154">s 43 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 238">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 238">discretionary power to award costs under federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) s 43</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 238">where native title questions involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 238">whether the native title act 1993 (cth) s 85a can be taken into account in the exercise of discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 238">held even though not directly applicable, "spirit" of s 85 relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 238">held that "spirit" did not displace usual rule that costs follow the event in circumstances where prior intermediate appellate authority highlighted a lack of standing and jurisdiction</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1154" id="cs0">In Fesl v Delegate of the Native Title Registrar (No 2) [2008] FCA 1479 ; (2008) 173 FCR 176 , Logan J under an Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Native Title Registrar to register an Indigenous Land Use Agreement ( ILUA ), Logan J made no order for costs, taking into account the 'spirit' of s 85A and after a detailed analysis of the relevant considerations (at [13]-[19]) his Honour said:

 13 The applicants drew my attention to an unreported decision of Marshall J in Murray v Registrar, National Native Title Tribunal [2003] FCA 45 and to the appellate sequel to that decision, Murray v Registrar, National Native Title Tribunal [2003] FCAFC 220 ; (2003) 132 FCR 402. Murray's case had a similar background to the present in the sense that it was an unsuccessful application pursuant to the AD(JR) Act for the Court to set aside a decision of a delegate of the Registrar of the National Native Title Tribunal to register an ILUA. At first instance (at [9] and [10]), Marshall J stated:

 "9 Although not formally a matter arising under the Native Title Act , the proceeding was centrally concerned with provisions of that legislation.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 238" id="cs1"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CE Consideration and conditions</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CJ Decision about registration</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 81 Jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 85A Costs</title>
<title id="l8">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 213 Provisions relating to Federal Court jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l10">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l12">JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 1991 - SECT 49 49 Costs—review application</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">antoun v the queen  antoun v the queen  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">judge sitting alone in criminal trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">standards of fairness and detachment required of a trial judge.   gleeson cj. the appellants were jointly charged with demanding money with menaces from michael savvas, with intent to steal. the trial was conducted in the district court of new south wales before judge christie, sitting without a jury. the appellants were convicted, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. they appealed unsuccessfully to the court of criminal appeal of new south wales [1] . the sole ground of their further appeal to this court is that the trial judge conducted himself in such a way that a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that he might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question whether the appellants ought to be convicted. that ground is conveniently summarised as "apprehended bias". the apprehended bias is said to have arisen from two aspects of the trial judge's conduct in particular: first, the manner in which he dealt with what was described as a submission of no case to answer; secondly, his manner of raising and dealing with a question of bail.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">johnson v johnson  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">application for disqualification for bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">statement by trial judge about evidence to be relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">whether statement gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 274">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 274">consideration of an application for dismissal of a part of a proceeding against a second respondent pursuant to s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 274">consideration of whether an amended statement of claim in the proceeding properly pleads material facts supporting a claim of accessorial liability in respect of contended contraventions by a corporation of provisions of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)    employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 274">consideration of the adequacy of a pleading of a claim of accessorial liability pursuant to s 728 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) in respect of contended contraventions by a corporation of ss 767(3) and 767 (7) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1537">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1537">application for costs against presently self-represented litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1537">circumstances in which costs will be awarded on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1537">where litigant's unreasonable conduct has needlessly prolonged the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2006] AATA 523">expectation pty ltd v prd reality pty ltd (no.2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2006] AATA 523">[2006] fca 392</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 274" id="cs0">In Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 236 ALR 720 , Rares J observed that the Court ought to be very cautious to ensure that an injustice is not done to a party by summarily dismissing a proceeding where there may be contested questions of fact to be determined at trial and the resolution of that factual controversy might go one way or the other. Rares J also observed that s 31A is engaged only to determine summarily a claim or defence which has no reasonable prospect of success. That view has been followed in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 416 per Jacobson J [39]; Hicks v Ruddoch (2007) 156 FCR 574 per Tamberlin J [13] and Spiteri v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 905 per Edmond J [10] to [15]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1537" id="cs1">28 When the trial began on Monday, 14 March 2006, junior counsel for Mr Spalla announced an appearance with senior counsel, stating that senior counsel was unwell. I subsequently refused an application for an adjournment. In my judgment of 18 April 2006 (see Spalla v St George Wholesale Finance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 416 at [11] ) which rejected Mr Spalla's bias application, I said:

 "Mr Spalla first raised the issue of my decision to continue with the hearing despite the illness of his senior counsel. As the respondents noted, this was a qualified decision. After a colloquy with the applicant's junior counsel (who has apparently over ten year's experience at the bar) I ruled that the hearing should continue in order that the applicant might present his evidence in chief notwithstanding the absence of senior counsel.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] AATA 523" id="cs2">In Spalla v St George Wholesale Finance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 416 at [9] the Court cited from the case of Johnson:

 The High Court has stressed that the reasonableness of any complaint of apprehended bias is "to be considered in the context of judicial practice"
 Thus, events occurring within the ordinary course of litigation will not give rise to an apprehension of bias. Those authorities included Re Seven Network Limited v Another (2004) 182 FLR at 169 Goldberg J, Expectation Pty Ltd v PRD Reality Pty Ltd ( No.2) --- [2006] FCA 392 , Re JRL Ex Parte CJL [1986] HCA 39 ; (1986) 161 CLR 342 , Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) CLR 337 , Antoun v The Queen [2006] HCA 2 and Spalla v St George Wholesale Finance Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 416.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>