Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">(third respondent) file no: bs 1868 of 2007 division: trial division proceeding: application originating court: supreme court of queensland delivered on: 14 november 2007 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 12 october 2007 judge: chesterman j order: application dismissed  contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">building engineering and related contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">adjudication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">where the first respondent sent the applicant an invoice for building work completed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">where the applicant sent an email to the first respondent refusing to accept the invoice and suggesting the parties meet to discuss the claim and amount payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">where in response the first respondent applied under s21 of the building and construction industry payments act 2004 (qld) for an adjudication of the dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">where the second respondent was appointed as adjudicator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">where the applicant argued that the appointment was precluded on the grounds that the applicant had issued a payment schedule to the first respondent as defined under the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">whether the applicant's email constituted a payment schedule under s18 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">whether the second respondent should have granted the applicant an opportunity to make submissions regarding the nature of the email administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">powers of courts under judicial review legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">other orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">where the court's jurisdiction to hear the appeal was founded under part 3 of the judicial review act 1991 (qld)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">where under ss13 and 48 the court could dismiss an application for review if the applicant was afforded an opportunity for review by another court, tribunal, authority or person, or if the interests of justice made it appropriate to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] QSC 333">whether the mechanisms available to the applicant under s100 of the building and construction industry payments act 2004 (qld) enlivened the power granted under ss13 and 48</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">building and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">progress payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">building  construction industry security of payment act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">payment claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">requirement of identification of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">consequences of defecient identification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">whether payment claim a nullity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">whether, in absence of a payment schedule, a payment claim pruporting to identify the work can support a cause of action under s.15 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 409">whether summary judgment available.   legislation cited:  building  construction industry security of payment act 1999, ss.13-15, 20-22</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 229">building and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 229">progress payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 229">building  construction industry security of payment act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 229">adjudicator's determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 229">whether "delay damages" under contract are "for" construction work or related goods and services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 229">whether delay damages can be included in payment claims under the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 258">challenge to determination of adjudicator under the building and construction industry security of payment act 1999 statutory scheme dictates that the adjudication response be relevantly tied to the payment schedule [such that the adjudication response cannot include any reasons for withholding payment unless those reasons have already been included in the payment schedule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 258">section 20 (2b)]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">whether the determination of an adjudicator under the building and construction industry security of payment act 1999 is open to judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">whether an adjudication may be reviewed for error of law on the face of the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">the extent of an adjudicator's jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">what must be disclosed by a payment schedule under the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">whether there were errors of law going to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">whether whole determination must be quashed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">discretionary considerations as to granting of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">consequences where determination quashed.acts cited:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">building and construction industry security of payment act 1999 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">s.2 , s. 3 , s. 8 , s. 9 , s. 10 , s. 11 , s. 13 , s. 14 , s. 15 , s. 16 s. 17 , s. 18 , s. 19 , s. 20 , s. 21 , s. 22 , s. 23 , s. 24 , s.25 , s. 26 , s. 27 , s. 32 , s. 34</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">s.459e</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">supreme court act 1970 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1140">s.69</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">building and construction industry security of payment act 1999</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">time within which application for adjudication must be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">building, engineering and related contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">building and construction industry security of payment act 1999</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 856">time within which application for adjudication must be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 365">construction, security of payment adjudication, whether adjudicator acted ultra vires in adjudication and determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 365">whether adjudicator's determination a nullity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 365">whether payment claim is foundation of jurisdiction of adjudicator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 365">whether serious issues to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 365">whether defendant entitled to declarations and summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 266">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 266">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 266">security of payment whether payment claim valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 330">building and construction contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 330">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 330">s14(3) contractors debts act 1997</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 330">attachment order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 330">two stage process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 330">whether the court is required to first assess the claim on the face of the application and then exercise a discretion of whether to make the order after considering other relevant evidence  legislation cited:  building and construction security of payment act 1999 (nsw)  contractors debts act 1997 (nsw) ss5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 330">9 ; s 14</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 136">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 136">whether building  construction industry security of payment act 1999 applied to contract entered into after commencement of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 136">whether payment claim satisfied requirement of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 136">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 136">whether employed solicitor may sign a statutory demand on behalf of client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">genuine dispute and offsetting claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">proprietor claims variation credits and compensation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">genuine dispute or offsetting claim established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">building  construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">statutory entitlement to make payment claim for progress payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">invoice for final account held not to be claim for progress payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 395">requirements for valid payment claim under building and construction industry securities of payment act 1999 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2001] VSC 436">building contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2001] VSC 436">final payment claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2001] VSC 436">summary judgment application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2001] VSC 436">whether final payment claim supported by evidence of the amount due</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2001] VSC 436">whether principal liable to pay the amount claimed in a final payment claim where no final certificate issued within time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2001] VSC 436">effect of final certificate issued out of time. as2124-1992 cll. 42.1, 42.7, 42.8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">building contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">adjudications conducted under part 3 division 2 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether non-claimable variations included in payment claim and adjudication determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether severance of invalid part open</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether inclusion of liquidated damages claimed by respondent in payment schedule and adjudication determination permitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether inclusion of liquidated damages claimed by respondent within s. 10b(2) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether prematurely served payment claim and adjudication thereon valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether payment claim sufficiently identified the work done.  john mcmullan second defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 4-5 april 2011 date of judgment : 6 may 2011  seabay properties pty ltd v galvin construction pty ltd  anor medium neutral citation : [2011] vsc 183</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">building contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">adjudications conducted under part 3 division 2 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether non-claimable variations included in payment claim and adjudication determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether severance of invalid part open</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether inclusion of liquidated damages claimed by respondent in payment schedule and adjudication determination permitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether inclusion of liquidated damages claimed by respondent within s. 10b(2) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether prematurely served payment claim and adjudication thereon valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">whether payment claim sufficiently identified the work done.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">citing from="[2011] VSC 183">appearances : counsel solicitors for the plaintiffs mr j.a.h. foxcroft sc mr j.a.f. twigg giannakopoulos solicitors for the first defendant mr b.a. shnookal logie-smith lanyon for the second defendant no appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">building contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">progress claim under s.14 of the act as it was prior to the operation of act no. 42 of 2006</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">requirement to identify work in progress claim under s.14 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">degree of specificity in identification of work required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">consequences of non-compliance with identification requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">severance of part of payment claim open</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">considerations in applying severance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">consequences of invalidity of payment claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">test for jurisdictional error in adjudicator's determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether service of progress claim under the act after termination of construction contract permitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">circumstances in which progress claim may be served after construction contract terminated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether final payment claims permitted to be made under pre-amended act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether final payment claims permitted to be made under amended act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">what constitutes "progress claim"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">what constitutes "final payment claim"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether invalidity under s.14 of the act by reason of more than one payment claim made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 15</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">17 march 2010 date of judgment: 31 march 2010  gantley pty ltd v phoenix international group pty ltd medium neutral citation : [2010] vsc 106</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">building contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.21">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">progress claim under s.14 of the act as it was prior to the operation of act no. 42 of 2006</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.22">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">requirement to identify work in progress claim under s.14 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.23">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">degree of specificity in identification of work required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.24">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">consequences of non-compliance with identification requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.25">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">severance of part of payment claim open</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.26">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">considerations in applying severance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.27">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">consequences of invalidity of payment claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.28">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">test for jurisdictional error in adjudicator's determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.29">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether service of progress claim under the act after termination of construction contract permitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.30">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">circumstances in which progress claim may be served after construction contract terminated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.31">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether final payment claims permitted to be made under pre-amended act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.32">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether final payment claims permitted to be made under amended act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.33">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">what constitutes "progress claim"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.34">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">what constitutes "final payment claim"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.35">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether invalidity under s.14 of the act by reason of more than one payment claim made.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.36">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">principles of severance considered in relation to a statutory form drawn under an enactment.  statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.37">citing from="[2010] VSC 106">whether amending enactment can throw light on the intention of an earlier enactment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">peet beachton syndicate limited acn 117 351 514 (respondent) file no/s: bs 9682 of 2009 division: trial division proceeding: application originating court: supreme court brisbane delivered on: 20 november 2009 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 12 november 2009 judge: white j order: dismiss the application.  contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">building, engineering and related contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">where the applicant entered into a construction contract with the respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">where the applicant made a payment claim against the respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">where the applicant applies for judgment against the respondent pursuant to s 19(2)(a)(i) of the building and construction industry payments act 2004 (qld)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2009] QSC 376">whether the payment claim was valid under the building and construction industry payments act 2004 (qld)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">building contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">circumstances in which decisions of an adjudicator and review adjudicator are subject to judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">brodyn pty ltd v davenport [2004] nswca 394 considered and not followed in part.  phillip davenport thirdnamed defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 20 and 21 august 2009 date of judgment: 25 september 2009 case may be cited as : grocon constructors v planit cocciardi joint venture [no. 2] medium neutral citation : [2009] vsc 426 1 st revision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">building contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">circumstances in which decisions of an adjudicator and review adjudicator are subject to judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">brodyn pty ltd v davenport [2004] nswca 394 considered and not followed in part. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">extension of time to commence proceedings for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">decisions of adjudicator and review adjudicator appointed under building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">whether certiorari available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">grounds for certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2009] VSC 426">section 85 constitution act 1975 (vic) considered and applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">building and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">object and purpose of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">payment claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether application lodged within time with the nominating authority in accordance with s.18 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether payment claim in accordance with s.14 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">brodyn pty ltd v davenport [2004] nswca 394 not followed in part, applied in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether alleged deficiencies in procedure essential pre-conditions to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether matters for the adjudicator to decide -whether adjudicator's determination void.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 15-16 april 2009 date of judgment : 24 april 2009 case may be cited as : hickory developments pty ltd v schiavello (vic) pty ltd and anor medium neutral citation : [2009] vsc 156</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">building and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">building and construction industry security of payment act 2002 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">object and purpose of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">payment claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether application lodged within time with the nominating authority in accordance with s.18 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether payment claim in accordance with s.14 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">brodyn pty ltd v davenport [2004] nswca 394 not followed in part, applied in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether alleged deficiencies in procedure essential pre-conditions to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">whether matters for the adjudicator to decide -whether adjudicator's determination void.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">application of the hickman principle to privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.20">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">s.85 constitution act 1975 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.21">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">certiorari available under the act in victoria.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.22">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">electronic service of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.23">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">operation of email</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.24">citing from="[2009] VSC 156">when documents received.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] VSC 183" id="cs0">

 139 Seabay submitted that Galvin's Payment Claim 28 was invalid because it did not adequately identify the construction work to which the claim for the sum of $1,987,61.25 related. In particular it said that the payment claim did not comply with s.14(2)(c) and (d) of the Act because it failed to identify the work performed between the two relevant reference dates to which the payment claim related. Indeed, the payment claim, it was said, was in a form identical to that considered by Finkelstein J in Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd, [26] where his Honour found the payment claim to be invalid because of a failure to describe the work the subject of the claim. On this basis it was submitted that, as Payment Claim 28 did not comply with the Act and was invalid, the Adjudicator had no jurisdiction to determine the matter. 140 The Adjudicator considered these arguments but rejected them.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] VSCA 99" id="cs1">27 In my opinion, the trial judge was right to grant summary judgment. I respectfully adopt the words of Finkelstein J in Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd, [23] that the payment claim regime: [24]

 places the claimant in a privileged position in the sense that he acquires rights that go beyond his contractual rights. [25] The premise that underlies the legislation is that cash flow is the lifeblood of the construction industry [26] and that the principal under a construction contract should pay now and argue later. [27] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] QCA 381" id="cs2">'

[28] In Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1248 a decision under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (VIC), s 14(3) of which is the same as s 17 , Finkelstein J observed (at [12]):

'... a payment claim must be sufficiently detailed to enable the principal to understand the basis of the claim.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] QCA 119" id="cs3">[6]
[25] The letter enclosing the First Claim was addressed to Traspunt's parent company, but the claim itself correctly identified Traspunt as the Principal.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 106" id="cs4">221 Finkelstein J in Protectavale [104] was of the same view, which his Honour expressed in carefully considered obiter dicta.

 47 Finkelstein J in Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd [23] expressed a similar view in considering the requirements of s.14(2)(a) when he said: [24]

 It is necessary to decide whether the invoice meets the requirements of s 14.

 180 Finkelstein J described a "final payment claim" in the following terms in Protectavale, [90] which I accept:

 A final payment claim may be defined as a "final balancing of account between the contracting parties" ( Jemzone Pty Ltd v Trytan Pty Ltd (2002) 42 ACSR at 49) or "simply the last of the payment claims" ( Southern Region Pty Ltd v State of Victoria (No 3) [2001] VSC 436 at [32] ). As Finkelstein J said in Protectavale: [89]

 Progress payments are effectively payments by instalments or periodic payments made over the life of the contract for construction work already completed. [106]
225 In the present case, each of the relevant construction contracts drew a clear distinction between a progress payment and what may be described as a final payment.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] QDC 60" id="cs5">'

[28] In Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1248 a decision under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (VIC), s 14(3) of which is the same as s 17 , Finkelstein J observed:

 '... a payment claim must be sufficiently detailed to enable the principal to understand the basis of the claim.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] QSC 376" id="cs6">"

 [28] In Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd, [24] a decision under the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 (VIC), s 14(3) of which is the same as s 17 , Finkelstein J observed: [25]

"... a payment claim must be sufficiently detailed to enable the principal to understand the basis of the claim. [26]

 [29] A similar observation might be made of this payment claim.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 426" id="cs7">[128] Added to this is the decision of the adjudicator which defines the outcome of the proceeding before him.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VCC 1504" id="cs8"/>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 156" id="cs9">56 As Finkelstein J observed in Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd, [18] the payment claim and payment schedule define the issues in dispute between the parties which the adjudicator is to resolve, and limit the points which may be the subject of submissions to the adjudicator: Parist Holdings Pty Ltd v WT Partnership Australia Pty Ltd; [19] Multiplex Constructions Pty Ltd v Luikens. [20]  55 Accordingly, there are three possible outcomes of this process under the Act, in its current amended form. [17] First, if the respondent does not provide a payment schedule within due time, whether intentionally (because he disputes the claim) or unintentionally, he becomes liable to pay the claimed amount: s.16, and may, at the option of the claimant, be subject to an adjudication application: s.18(1)(b). Second, if the respondent does provide a payment schedule and the scheduled amount is the same as the claimed amount, he becomes liable under the Act to pay the amount claimed: s.17. The third possible outcome (which is confined to the outcome which arose in this case and does not include two other possible outcomes described in s.18(1)(a)(ii) and s.18(1)(b)) occurs if the respondent provides a payment schedule but the scheduled amount is less than the claimed amount, the claimant may apply within ten business days after the claimant has received the payment schedule to have the dispute adjudicated by an appointed adjudicator (an adjudication application): s.18(1)(a)(i) and s.18(3)(c).  12 In my opinion a court should, wherever possible, expeditiously deal with short points of law or construction. [2] This is particularly so in cases in a managed list such as the Building Cases List. [3] The benefit of this approach is enhanced in this case because what is fundamentally at stake is the question of Schiavello's immediate right to payment, or otherwise, of a substantial progress payment or progress payments for building works. The outcome will have a direct affect on the cash flow of both parties. Further, there is no dispute as to the relevant material facts; the case was able to be presented as a trial upon the affidavits filed, without cross-examination. The only question is the legal effect of a payment claim for a progress payment or progress payments served by Schiavello on Hickory purportedly under the Subcontract and the Act. Finally, the purposes of the Act in achieving expedition in the resolution of progress claims will be advanced by adopting this course and diminished if it is not.  53 The requirements of s.14 of the Act should not be approached in an overly technical manner. Finkelstein J in Protectavale Pty Ltd v K2K Pty Ltd said: [16]

 It is necessary to decide whether the invoice meets the requirements of s 14. The test is an objective one; that is, it must be clear from the terms of the document that it contains the required information: Walter Construction Group Ltd v CPL (Surry Hills) Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 266 at [82] . But the terms must be read in context. Payment claims are usually given and received by parties experienced in the building industry who are familiar with the particular construction contract, the history of the project and any issues which may have arisen between them regarding payment. Those matters are part of the context: Multiplex Constructions [2003] NSWSC 1140 at [76] . The manner in which compliance with s 14 is tested is not overly demanding: Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v Campbelltown Catholic Club Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1103 at [54] citing Hawkins Construction (Aust) Pty Ltd v Mac's Industrial Pipework Pty Ltd [2002] NSWCA 136 at [20] ("[The requirements for a payment claim] should not be approached in an unduly technical manner ... As the words are used in relation to events occurring in the construction industry, they should be applied in a commonsense practical manner"); Multiplex Constructions [2003] NSWSC 1140 at [76] ("[A] payment claim and a payment schedule must be produced quickly; much that is contained therein in an abbreviated form which would be meaningless to the uninformed reader will be understood readily by the parties themselves"); Minimax Fire Fighting Systems Pty Ltd v Bremore Engineering (WA Pty Ltd) [2007] QSC 333 at [20] ("The Act emphasises speed and informality. Accordingly one should not approach the question whether a document satisfies the description of a payment schedule (or payment claim for that matter) from an unduly critical viewpoint"). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VCC 1490" id="cs10"/>
<sentence from="[2008] VCC 1170" id="cs11"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SECURITY OF PAYMENT ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l2">Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 - SECT 14 Payment claims</title>
<title id="l3">Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002 - SECT 15 Payment schedules</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">workplace agreement purported to be lodged by the etheridge shire council under the workplace relations act 1996</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">whether the etheridge shire council is an "employer" pursuant to section 6 of the workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">answering that question dependant upon whether the council is a corporation to which section 51(xx) of the constitution applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">council held not to be such a corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">council therefore held not to be an "employer"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">council therefore held ineligible to lodge the relevant workplace agreement. constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">corporations power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">"trading or financial corporations"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">whether the etheridge shire council is a "trading corporation" or a "financial corporation" within section 51(xx) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">held that the test for characterising the nature of a corporation in the context of s 51(xx) is a consideration of the predominant or characteristic activity of the body, the extent of that activity and the relative significance of that activity in the affairs of the corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">where the activities of the council were not limited to trading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">where the predominant and characteristic activity of the council was that of a local government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1268">council held not to be a "trading corporation" or a "financial corporation"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">whether a statutory limitation to award costs in industrial matters applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">principles relating to discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">no application for costs made at hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">costs later sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">the question of costs should normally be raised at the hearing  rights or duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">whether the right or duty that was sought to be enforced owed its existence to a federal act matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 95">in a matter arising under the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">action for declaration that rights of entry under federal law inconsistent with rights of entry under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">reliance upon s 109 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">whether matter arising under the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">declarations sought dependent upon the existence and scope of rights of entry under the workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">matter arising under the workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">costs provision of workplace relations act applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">no order as to costs made  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">proceedings alleging inconsistency between rights of entry under workplace relations act 1996 (cth) and industrial relations act 1979 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">whether proceedings in a matter arising under the workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 908">whether costs provision of workplace relations act applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">oshlack v richmond river council  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">statutory power under environmental planning and assessment legislation to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">"public interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">significant issues of interpretation of that legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">whether discretion with respect to costs miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 268">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 268">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 268">application for costs under s.570 fair work act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 268">where proceeding discontinued after first directions hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 95">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 95">proceedings in which it was held that respondent was not an employer within the meaning of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 95">whether proceedings in which appellants had sought declarations to that effect were "in a matter arising under this act" for the purposes of s 824(1) of the workplace relations act .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">termination of employment of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">whether applicant's employment was terminated for a prohibited reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">whether applicant proposed to make a complaint to a body having the capacity under an industrial law to seek compliance with that law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">whether applicant proposed to participate in a proceeding under an industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">whether respondent has discharged the reverse onus imposed in proceedings under s 807 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">whether respondent has provided an explanation of the real reason for termination of applicant's employment    costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">general restriction on costs under s 824 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 339">whether some or all of the respondents in both proceedings are entitled to costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FWA 2225" id="cs0">"

 [23] In Dowling v Fairfax Media Publications Pty Ltd 15 Moore J considered the term 'without reasonable cause' within the context of the same general costs provision of the WR Act as applied to Kangan v AIRC 16 (renumbered as s.824(1)) and stated:

 "52. The words of the s 824(1) of the WR Act require me to consider whether the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause. In answering the question posed by s 824(1), I am required to undertake a qualitative assessment of the proceeding in its entirety, focussing of course on the party that 'instituted' the proceeding (see Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Etheridge Shire Council (No 2) [2009] FCA 58 at [27] per Spender J). 53. In considering whether a proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause for the purpose of s 824(1) it is necessary to distinguish between the situation where an applicant has merely been unsuccessful on the case he or she has sought to propound and the situation where the applicant's case was entirely misconceived.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 268" id="cs1">His Honour says at [52]: "In answering the question posed by section 824(1) [a section similar in form to section 570] I am required to undertake a qualitative assessment of the proceeding in its entirety focusing, of course, on the party that "instituted the proceeding" (see Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Etheridge Shire Council (2) (2009 FCA 58 [27]) per Spender J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 95" id="cs2">
 Before the Court is an appeal from orders of a single Judge, Australian Workers' Union of Queensland v Etheridge Shire Council [2009] FCA 58 ("the Costs Judgment"), rendered in consequence of a ruling on an application for the costs of the primary proceeding in which his Honour's reasons are to be found in Australian Workers' Union of Queensland v Etheridge Shire Council [2008] FCA 1268 ; (2008) 171 FCR 102 ("the Primary Judgment"). The question upon which this appeal turns is whether, upon the proper construction of s 824 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ("the WR Act "), the primary proceeding involved a matter "arising under" the WR Act , so that prima facie each party should have borne its own costs of the primary proceeding. Otherwise, the Court should have exercised the discretion conferred by s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ("the Federal Court Act ") which requires consideration of whether to apply the "normal rule" that costs follow the event. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 339" id="cs3">The words of the s 824(1) of the WR Act require me to consider whether the proceeding was instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause. In answering the question posed by s 824(1), I am required to undertake a qualitative assessment of the proceeding in its entirety, focussing of course on the party that "instituted" the proceeding (see Australian Workers' Union of Employees, Queensland v Etheridge Shire Council (No 2) [2009] FCA 58 at [27] per Spender J). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78A Intervention by Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">equuscorp pty ltd v glengallan investments pty ltd  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">written agreement and prior oral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">written agreement inconsistent with terms of alleged prior oral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">no allegation of mistake or claim to rectification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">borrower bound by written agreement.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">direction to lender to apply money lent in payment of moneys due from borrower to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">series of connected and legally effective transactions creating and satisfying debts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">one of those transactions satisfying amount due from borrower to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">no payment by cheque or cash</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">does a loan require the transfer of "real money"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">whether loan made as agreed.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 55">remitter for further consideration.   gleeson cj, mchugh, kirby, hayne and callinan jj. as the 1989 financial year ebbed away, each respondent in these appeals considered making a "tax effective" investment. on the last day of may 1989, mr alastair hassell, a marketing consultant for a group of companies associated with mr tony johnson ("the johnson group"), sent to one of the respondents, mr barry thornton, a circular entitled, "precisely what is the best farming investment this year?". the circular suggested that the answer to this question was "the red claw (fresh water crustacean) project in northern queensland" to be conducted by the johnson group as a "large-scale aquaculture project".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">implied trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">resulting trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">whether rebuttal of presumption of advancement from parent to child of equitable interest in property in addition to legal title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">whether parent possessed "definite intention" to retain beneficial interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">application of general law of evidence to determine whether "definite intention" proved  conflict of laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">breach of foreign law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">whether australian courts will prevent party from enforcing in australia a resulting trust created in a foreign jurisdiction for a purpose that was "illegal" or "unlawful" in that foreign jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">identification of "illegal" or "unlawful" purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">necessity to examine provisions of foreign legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">ascertainment of "policy" of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">where foreign jurisdiction is germany</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">where foreign law relates to capital gains tax avoidance or evasion  conflict of laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">presumption of identity of unproved foreign law and the lex fori</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">whether such presumption should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">where foreign jurisdiction is germany</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">where relevant unproved foreign law is likely to be statute-based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">where relevant unproved foreign law relates to capital gains tax avoidance and evasion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">where taxation law is not an area of law that is based on broad principles that can be assumed to be part of any given legal system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 87">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">offer and acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether letter constituted contractual offer to vary existing contract and create new contract between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">where language of offer ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">assessment of mutually known facts re contractual background and shared beliefs of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether conduct partially conforming to letter of offer constituted implied acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">mutually understood purpose of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether response to offer was rejection of it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether response to offer merely constituted posturing and negotiation  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">no immediate or guaranteed increase in earnings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">likelihood of future increases in earnings  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">construction of terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">meaning of "general commercial refuse"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">in context of agreement with local council to operate waste depot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">meaning of "additional income"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">in context of moneys required to be remitted to local council from fees charged for receipt of liquid waste at waste depot  remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">restitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">doctrine of unjust enrichment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">discussion about controversy and debate in australia surrounding development of doctrine and its applicability to claims in contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">gifts to the australian elizabethan theatre trust attracting deduction under para. 78 (1) (a) (xiii) of the income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">gifts stated to be "unconditional" but with "preference" for "allocation" to particular arts organisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">moneys banked in overdrawn operating account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">no "allocation" yet made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">provisional liquidator appointed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">whether express or constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 344">nature of quistclose trust.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">real property (w.a.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">torrens system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">indefeasibility of title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">exceptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">whether confined to fraud committed in act of acquiring registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">right in personam against registered proprietor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">transfer of land act 1893 (w.a.), ss. 68 , 134 .  vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">contract of sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">specific performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">purchaser's readiness and willingness to perform</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">relevant time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1988] HCA 16">need to plead.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">interest pursuant to s. 51a of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">section 52 of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">misleading and deceptive conduct in connection with sale of restaurant business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">circumstances in which silence may constitute misleading conduct under s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">whether applicant had constructive notice of matters which solicitors acting for the applicant would have discovered if proper enquiries had been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">construction of special conditions in contract for sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">operation of exclusion clauses as a defence to an action under s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">circumstances in which order for restitution is appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">exercise of court's discretion under s. 87 of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">adequacy of damages as remedy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 59">trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 59">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 59">unconscionable retention of benefit unmarried persons pooling incomes for living expenses and fixed commitments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 59">purchase of house in name of man as home for parties whether constructive trust in favour of wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 59">unjust enrichment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">resulting trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">unconscionable retention of benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">failure of joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">purchase of land by unmarried persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">joint and several liability under contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">price paid by woman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">undertaking by man to pay for certain repairs and cost of prefabricated house</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">separation without fulfilment of undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">whether resulting trust in favour of woman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">whether rebutted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">failure of joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">effect of discharge of joint debt by woman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">gift on condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">failure to fulfil condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">whether forfeiture or right to compensation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">concluded agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">exchange of parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">whether essential that counterparts be identical in material respects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">whether sufficient that conformity might be obtained by rectification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">notice to complete in less than fourteen days</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 58">whether reasonable period.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">land and oil refinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">contract subject to purchaser's entering into satisfactory agreement or arrangement with named supplier for supply of satisfactory quantity of crude oil and receiving approval for finance on satisfactory terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">whether contract illusory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">whether purchaser obliged to take reasonable steps to procure finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 52">whether purchaser required to be honest and reasonable about offer of finance.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">frustration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract to carry out excavations for rail authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">completion required by certain date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contractor working three shifts seven days per week</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">injunction granted to third party restraining contractor from working at certain times</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether implied term of contract that authority would grant reasonable extension of time and indemnify contractor against additional costs occasioned by grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether injunction frustrated contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">extrinsic evidence of intention.  arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">jurisdiction to entertain claim that contract frustrated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">power to award interest on award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">compound interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 94(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1973] HCA 36">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1973] HCA 36">written agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1973] HCA 36">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1973] HCA 36">intention of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1973] HCA 36">ambiguity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1973] HCA 36">literal meaning.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1969] HCA 29">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1969] HCA 29">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1969] HCA 29">vague, uncertain or illusory promise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1969] HCA 29">promise to pay money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1969] HCA 29">amount not specified but to be fixed in promisor's discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1969] HCA 29">whether duty to consider and fix amount payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1969] HCA 29">promise by commonwealth to pay subsidy of amount or at rate to be determined by itself.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 68">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 68">written contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 68">condition to grant sub-lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 68">no specified term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 68">"one-third share of crops"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 68">no specified type of crop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 68">void for uncertainty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">contract of sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">purchaser's covenant to grant lease to third party supplier of petroleum products "upon such reasonable terms as commonly govern such a lease"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">no evidence concerning terms of lease in common use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">term of lease and rent not specified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">whether such covenant, void for uncertainty, severable.  practice (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">interest on judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">to be allowed "upon application" at hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">what constitutes application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1968] HCA 71">supreme court act 1958 (vict.), s. 78 (1)* (as amended by supreme court (interest on judgments) act 1962 (vict.), s. 2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">gift</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">intention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">transfer of fee simple in remainder expectant on death of donor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">registration to be effected by donor's solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">death of donor before lodgment of transfer for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">imperfect gift</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">whether perfected by appointment of donees as executrices of donor's will</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">whether property may be subject of testator's family maintenance order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">testator's family maintenance and guardianship of infants act, 1916-1954 (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">wills, probate and administration act, 1898-1954 (n.s.w.), ss. 44, 46.  testator's family maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">property in respect of which order may be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">property subject of imperfect gift by testator in lifetime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">voluntary transfer of torrens land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">unregistered at death</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">registration entrusted to testator's solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">appointment of donees as executrices of testator's will</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">whether gift perfected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">testator's family maintenance and guardianship of infants act, 1916-1954 (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">cited from="[1968] HCA 53">wills, probate and administration act, 1898-1954 (n.s.w.), ss. 44, 46.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">vagueness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">uncertainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">contract capable of meaning distinguished from meaningless contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">commercial contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 8">"variations in supplier's costs".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 41">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 41">whether concluded bargain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 41">agreement by directors as to the future exercise of fiduciary powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 41">illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 41">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 41">non assumpsit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 41">illegality.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">husband and wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">married women's property legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">beneficial ownership of land and matrimonial home erected thereon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">moneys contributed by both spouses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">transfer taken in name of wife alone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">presumption of advancement not applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">wife trustee for self and husband</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">savings by wife from moneys provided by husband</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">principles to be applied in deciding questions between husband and wife as to ownership of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1963] HCA 49">law of property act, 1936-1960 (s.a.), s. 105.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">trust and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">resulting trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">presumption of advancement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">engaged couple purchasing land for matrimonial home in their joint names</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">transfer by prospective husband of his half interest in the land to intended wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">expressed to be for specified monetary consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">no money paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">house afterwards erected on land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">each paying portion of the cost</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">marriage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">house used as matrimonial home</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">summary application by husband to a judge for a declaration that wife held the land as trustee for the two of them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">cited from="[1956] HCA 71">the married women's property acts 1890 to 1952 (q.), s. 21.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</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 119A Jurisdiction of incorporation and jurisdiction of registration</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 135 Replaceable rules</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 176 Evidentiary value of registers</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 205B Notice of name and address of directors and secretaries to ASIC</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 251A Minutes</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 761A Definitions</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1041H Misleading or deceptive conduct (civil liability only)</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1070A Nature of shares and certain other interests in a company or registered scheme</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1071A Application of the Subdivision to certain securities</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1071B Instrument of transfer</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1071D Registration of transfer at request of transferor</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1072F Registration of transfers (replaceable rule--see section 135)</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1072G Additional general discretion for directors of proprietary companies to refuse to register transfers (replaceable rule--see section 135)</title>
<title id="l15">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1073A Application of the Division to certain securities</title>
<title id="l16">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1073D Regulations may govern transfer of certain securities</title>
<title id="l17">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1073F Operation of this Division and regulations made for its purposes</title>
<title id="l18">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1274B Use, in court proceedings, of information from ASIC's national database</title>
<title id="l19">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1404 References in the new corporations legislation generally include references to events, circumstances or things that happened or arose before the commencement</title>
<title id="l20">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l21">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l22">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l23">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 88 Amendment or cancellation--other specified grounds</title>
<title id="l24">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 107 Applications for record to be made of assignment etc. of trade mark whose registration is sought</title>
<title id="l25">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l26">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 1.0.02 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l27">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.01 Definitions</title>
<title id="l28">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.10 Application of Division 3</title>
<title id="l29">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.11 Sufficient transfer: general</title>
<title id="l30">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.14 Sufficient transfer</title>
<title id="l31">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.15 Transferee's execution of transfer of Division 3 assets</title>
<title id="l32">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.22 Details to be included in instrument of transfer</title>
<title id="l33">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l34">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l35">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 42 Reference of certain questions to Products Safety Committee</title>
</legistitles>
</case>