Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">batistatos v roads and traffic authority of new south wales  batistatos v newcastle city council  abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">proceedings commenced in 1994 in respect of causes of action which accrued in 1965</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant suffered quadriplegia and other injuries in motor accident allegedly caused by the negligence of, and nuisance created by, the respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant born mentally retarded and later orphaned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">applications brought by respondents for summary dismissal or permanent stay for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether, due to the effluxion of time since the causes of action accrued, a fair trial was not possible for the respondents.  abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">factors to be considered in determining whether delay precludes the conduct of a fair trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether actions commenced by appellant untenable or futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether actions commenced by appellant present real question to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">sufficiency of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of fundamental right to bring legal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of summarily denying right to a trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of appellant's severely disabled condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of the extent of the investigations made by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of the disparity in the economic resources of the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of fact that the 30 year ultimate limitation bar had not yet descended.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant born mentally disabled and suffered quadriplegia in the accident out of which these proceedings arose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant's causes of action not subject to 6 year limitation period which would otherwise have been imposed by the limitation act 1969 (nsw) by reason of the appellant's disabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">actions commenced within 30 year ultimate limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether limitation act 1969 (nsw) precludes court from summarily dismissing or permanently staying proceedings for abuse of process when actions commenced before expiry of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether exercise of power to dismiss or stay in such circumstances is exceptional and requires proof of oppressive or contumelious conduct on the part of the plaintiff.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">powers of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether supplementary power of supreme court of new south wales properly described as inherent or implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">distinction between inherent powers and implied powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">basis from which the state supreme court derives its jurisdiction to summarily dismiss or permanently stay proceedings.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">powers of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether rules of court are exhaustive of the circumstances in which the supreme court can dismiss or stay proceedings for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">weight to be given to the relevant legislative context in exercising discretion to dismiss or stay proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">where both rules of court and supplementary jurisdiction empower supreme court to stay or dismiss proceedings for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relationship between supplementary jurisdiction and rules of court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1102">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1102">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1102">operation of international arbitration act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1102">approach to construction of arbitration clauses.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action brought in australian state for damages for negligent accounting advice given in foreign country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">loss suffered there and in australian state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">place of commission of tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">appropriate forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">cause of action arising out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">greek island cruise booked in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">ticket not given to passenger until commencement of cruise in greece</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">foreign jurisdiction clause on ticket</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">whether term of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">action brought in new south wales for injury sustained by passenger on cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">application by defendant for stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">forum non conveniens.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">claim for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">order preventing dissipation of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">mareva injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">power to order provision of security for satisfaction of any judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s. 23.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">anti-anti-suit injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">where arbitral proceedings brought in england and in rem proceedings brought in federal court of australia by same party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether action in rem constituted election to litigate rather than arbitrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">abandonment of right to arbitrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether right to arbitrate waived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether arbitration agreement rendered inoperative  arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">definition of agreement in writing under international arbitration act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">interpretation of art ii r 2 of the new york convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">meaning of 'contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">agreement formed by provision of bank guarantee arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">scope of arbitration clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether trade practices claim falls within scope of arbitration clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">where arbitration clause governed claims 'arising out of this contract' practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">continuation of anti-anti-suit injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">continuation of injunction to restrain the defendant from obtaining an injunction in a foreign court which would restrain the continuation of proceedings in the federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">where defendant threatening to take steps in english high court of justice to restrain proceedings in the federal court of australia  admiralty  maritime jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">arrest of vessel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">in personam claim  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">'agreement in writing' 'arbitration agreement' 'contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams' 'dispute arising out of this contract'  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">citing from="[2006] FCA 1112">that marine comandate's action in rem constituted an election to litigate rather than arbitrate and the arbitration agreement is therefore inoperative; that there was no 'agreement in writing' for the purposes of the international arbitration act 1974 (cth); the application for a stay and referral to arbitration be refused; that the trade practices claim by pan falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; that the federal court has jurisdiction to hear and determine pan's claim; and the interim injunction should continue to restrain the defendant from taking any steps in any court seeking to restrain the continuation of the current proceeding.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1112" id="cs0">
 On 9 June 2006 Pan Australia Shipping Pty Limited commenced these proceedings in rem and caused the arrest of the ship Comandate , a Liberian flagged vessel owned by Comandate Marine Corp. I have set out some of the factual background in the judgment I delivered on 22 June 2006: Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd v The Ship 'Comandate' [2006] FCA 881. I will not repeat that background here.
 ANTI-ANTI-SUIT INJUNCTION

 Comandate Marine argued that I should not grant an injunction because it was in the public interest to hold parties to their contracts to arbitrate. I am of opinion that this argument ignores the fact that the Court's jurisdiction to give relief under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) is of considerable importance and reflects the public interest expressed in the enactment of statutes by the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia as laws that are to govern commercial behaviour in this country. I remain of the opinion I expressed in my earlier judgment ( Pan Australia Shipping Pty Ltd v The Ship 'Comandate' [2006] FCA 881). However, Comandate Marine, by its counsel, offered an undertaking to the Court that if it were found that s 7(2) of the International Arbitration Act 1974 (Cth) did not require a stay of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) claims, to consent to the London arbitration determining all issues raised between the parties under the latter Act in respect of any conduct of the parties to which that Act would apply as a matter of Australian law relating to formation and/or entry into of the charter and/or relating to the conduct of the parties in connection with the performance of the charter as being disputes within cl 45(b) and as part of the existing dispute referred to the London arbitration. Comandate Marine, by its counsel, also proffered an undertaking to the Court to agree that the arbitrators would have such jurisdiction, and it undertook not to prevent the arbitrators exercising that jurisdiction in determining the whole of the dispute between the parties.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Maritime claims</title>
<title id="l2">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 17 Right to proceed in rem on owner's liabilities</title>
<title id="l3">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 29 Security in relation to stayed or dismissed proceedings</title>
<title id="l4">INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l5">INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION ACT 1974 - SECT 7 Enforcement of foreign arbitration agreements</title>
<title id="l6">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l7">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 52 "Contracting out" prohibited</title>
<title id="l8">ADMIRALTY RULES 1988 </title>
<title id="l9">ADMIRALTY RULES 1988 - REG 10 Caveats against release</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l11">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l12">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l13">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 68 Application of Division to contracts not to be excluded or modified.</title>
<title id="l14">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 74 Warranties in relation to the supply of services.</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">securities lending agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">contract to lend shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">ownership of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether securities lending agreement constitutes secured loan or purchase-and-sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether reference may be had to economic effect of transaction in determining legal character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether contract is to be construed with reference to its purpose, background, context, and market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether same contract may be construed differently if entered into in different market or by different participants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether it is reasonable and equitable to imply a term requiring shares acquired to be held and retained    corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether administrator or receiver is analogous to liquidator   equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">claim for equitable interest in shares transferred on documents purporting to give full title to broker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether equity of redemption can exist after outright transfer of title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether equitable charge over undefined shares may exist absent appropriation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 672">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 672">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 672">leave to proceed against company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 672">apparently arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 672">relief of a proprietary nature sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 672">no opposition by liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 672">leave granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 777">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 777">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 777">balance of convenience where company in voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 777">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 777">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 777">moratorium on legal proceedings and assertion of property rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] VSC 427">trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] VSC 427">trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] VSC 427">existence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] VSC 427">accredited advertising agency entering into agreement to place orders for media space on behalf of clients of another advertising agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2001] VSC 427">whether second advertising agency trustee of payments from clients for media invoices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2001] VSC 427">indicia for determining whether imputed trust or debtor creditor relationship existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2001] VSC 427">trust of certain payments held to exist.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">leave sought to proceed against first respondent in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">leave sought to join proposed fourth respondent in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">existence of serious claim and real dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">position of insurer reserved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">leave granted to proceed against first respondent and to join proposed fourth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">leave limited to proprietary claims and liability for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">leave excludes quantum of any damages or compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">proposed fourth responded not required to participate in litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 42">applicant not to enforce judgments or orders against first and fourth respondent without further leave of court</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 42" id="cs0">Two days ago, Finkelstein J handed down reasons for judgment in Phisci Pty Ltd v Green Frog Nominees Pty Ltd (In liq) (No 3) [2009] FCA 43. His Honour granted leave to proceed against OPSL essentially upon the ground that the claim is to recover the applicant's own property. His Honour limited the grant of leave to issues of liability only.  I do not propose to list the details of those proceedings. Leave to proceed against OPSL appears to has been given in the matters of Panopus PLC v Opes Prime StockBroking Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (Administrators appointed) (Supreme Court of Victoria proceeding 5835 of 2008); Asia Pacific Links Limited v Opes Prime Stockbroking Limited  Ors (Federal Court of Australia proceeding NSD 878 of 2008); and Phisci Pty Ltd v Green Frog Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 3) [2009] FCA 43. There are a number of other proceedings where leave has been sought but not yet granted. The proceedings involve more than 100 claimants and include a number of class actions. Client Creditors of OPSL
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12DA Misleading or deceptive conduct</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 500 Execution and civil proceedings</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l2">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l3">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l4">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 150 of 1989 - SECT 6 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission</title>
<title id="l5">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 150 of 1989 - SECT 207 Transfer of assets and liabilities of old Commission</title>
<title id="l6">ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ACT 1980 </title>
<title id="l7">ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ACT 1980 No. 34 of 1980 - SECT 8 Functions</title>
<title id="l8">ABORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION ACT 1980 No. 34 of 1980 - SECT 25 Application of General Fund in relation to housing and personal loans</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l10">POLICE ACT 1892 </title>
<title id="l11">TRANSFER OF LAND ACT 1893 </title>
<title id="l12">TRANSFER OF LAND ACT 1893 - SECT 106 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">judge, without stating notice of his intention to do so, determining the case on a basis different to that put forward by the parties throughout the trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">whether necessary to lead evidence to show that appellant would have conducted its case differentlydamages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">plaintiff with a pre-existing condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">whether plaintiff's pr-existing condition was a contributing factor to his or her injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">watts v rake (1960) 180 clr 158 and purkess v crittenden [1965] hca 34 ; (1965) 114 clr 164 apply subject to the principles expressed in malec v jc hutton pty ltd [1990] hca 20 ; (1990) 169 clr 638 appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">decision of dust diseases tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">jurisdiction of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">s 32(1) of the dust diseases tribunal act 1989 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">existence of an error "in point of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">lack of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">finding of fact in the absence of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 208">whether appellate court should make order as to constitution of the tribunal upon a re-hearing. d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1153">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1153">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1153">whether applicant should pay costs to former solicitors where claim against them have failed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1073">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1073">whether unsuccessful party can recover costs ordered to be paid by own solicitor based on negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1073">rule 21.07 federal magistrates court rules 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1073">whether separate negligence claim part of the accrued jurisdiction of the court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has jurisdiction to order costs against a third party under s.43 of federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has jurisdiction to discipline practitioners appearing or acting in matters before it.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has power to make an order for costs against a solicitor after judgment entered and order made for costs to be paid by one of the parties to the litigation.  family law act 1975 sub-s.117(2)  federal court of australia act 1976 ss.4 , 5 , 22 , 23 , 32 , 43 ; sub-s.43(1)  judiciary act 1903 ss.26 , 55b , 55c , 80 ; sub-s.55b(3)  supreme court act 1981 s.51; sub-s.51(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">submission that evidence of witness should not be accepted stopped by judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">evidence accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">whether new trial should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">appeal from state supreme court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">matter arising under law made by commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">whether court exercising federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">import licences issued under customs (import licensing) regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">agreement relating to benefit of licensed quota</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">action to enforce agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs act 1901 (cth), s. 50(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs (import licensing) regulations, reg. 7,9,16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12), s. 76(ii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">judiciary act 1901 (cth), s. 39.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trading and financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">prohibition of corporations from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">imposition of liability for damages on persons involved in such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">imposition on persons other than corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4(1) , 52 (1), 75b, 82 (1), 84 (2).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trading and financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">character of corporation which has barely begun to carry on business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">relevance of constitution including objects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">non-federal claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">whether part of same matter as federal claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), ss. 76 , 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 86.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">proceedings in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">claim for relief under federal statute and at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">jurisdiction in common law claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">the consitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xxxix.), 71, 75, 76, 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 19 , 22 , 32</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 40</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s. 15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 , 53 , 80 , 82, 86.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">appeal from state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">court invested with federal jurisdiction in matters arising under laws made by commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">matter raised by pleadings and at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">cause otherwise concerned with other matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">whether court exercising federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">whether non-federal claim severable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 76 (ii.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 32">judiciary act 1903 (cth), ss. 39 (2) (a), 40 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">application for review of decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">whether order should be made against barrister under r.21.07 of the federal magistrates court rules.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">application for review of decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">whether order should be made against barrister under r.21.07 of the federal magistrates court rules.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 61" id="cs0">While Nicholson J upheld an appeal from this decision (see Taylor v CGU Insurance Limited [2006] FCA 548) on the basis that the court had failed to accord the applicant or his solicitor procedural fairness (in purporting to determine the substantial merits without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on such an issue), his Honour made it clear (at [21] --- [29]) that the Federal Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to consider an application for costs against solicitors acting for a party "by its character as an application for costs in the proceeding" even though the solicitors were not parties to the proceeding. Such reasoning would also apply to proceedings against a barrister. Nicholson J did not take issue with the statement of general principles referred to above. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 496" id="cs1">While Nicholson J upheld an appeal from this decision (see Taylor v CGU Insurance Limited [2006] FCA 548) on the basis that the court had failed to accord the applicant or his solicitor procedural fairness (in purporting to determine the substantial merits without giving the parties an opportunity to be heard on such an issue), his Honour made it clear (at [21] --- [29]) that the Federal Magistrates Court has jurisdiction to consider an application for costs against solicitors acting for a party "by its character as an application for costs in the proceeding" even though the solicitors were not parties to the proceeding. Such reasoning would also apply to proceedings against a barrister. Nicholson J did not take issue with the statement of general principles referred to above. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 22 Determination of matter completely and finally</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 79 Costs</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 - SECT 4 Costs to be costs as between party and party etc.</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 - SECT 6 Costs certificates for respondents--Federal appeals</title>
<title id="l9">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 21.07 Order for costs against lawyer</title>
<title id="l13">DESIGNS AMENDMENT ACT 1981 </title>
<title id="l14">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l16">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 79 Other injunctions</title>
<title id="l17">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 552">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">amendment of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">where applicant sought leave to amend points of claim some three years after proceedings commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">where party in default claimed it had always intended to make those amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">where significant prejudice to other party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">decision in j l holdings considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">whether reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 769">tests for insolvency considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">citation: field v luxor products pty ltd  anor [2009] qsc 218 parties: mark anthony field trading as m  n waterproofing  restoration services (bn 6535811) (plaintiff/applicant) v luxor products pty ltd acn 002 301 886 (first defendant/first respondent) and gabr sayed elgafi (second defendant/second respondent) file no: bs 10122 of 2005 division: trial division proceeding: application originating court: supreme court at brisbane delivered on: 10 august 2009 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 20 july 2009 judge: p lyons j order: the claim is dismissed for want of prosecution  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">courts and judges generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">dismissal of proceedings for want of prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">where the plaintiff is in default due to a failure to comply with previous court orders on a number of occasions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">where the defendant seeks an order that the action be dismissed for want of prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">where there was a lack of credible explanation for the delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">consideration of r 5 uniform civil procedure rules 1999 (qld)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2009] QSC 218">whether the plaintiff is entitled to commence fresh proceedings after the action has been dismissed while the plaintiff's claim is still within limitation periods.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application to further amend amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application would lead to vacation of trial date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">prejudice to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">relevance of queensland v j l holdings pty limited [1997] hca 1 ; (1997) 189 clr 146.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">judge : robson j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 24 april, 7 and 14 may 2009 date of judgment : 28 may 2009 case may be cited as : re awb limited (no 3) medium neutral citation : [2009] vsc 209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application to further amend amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application would lead to vacation of trial date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">prejudice to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">relevance of queensland v j l holdings pty limited [1997] hca 1 ; (1997) 189 clr 146.   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application for non-party discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">asic filed list of documents it intends to rely on at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">asic seeks to obtain discovery of further documents not on list</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">discovery process will lead to vacation of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">delay in making application for non-party discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">whether application for non-party discovery should be dismissed.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">application to further amend amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">civil penalty procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">relevance of queensland v j l holdings pty limited [1997] hca 1 ; (1997) 189 clr 146</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">citing from="[2009] VSC 209">rule 36.01 of supreme court (general civil procedure ) rules 2005.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">application to set aside orders made in absence of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">whether applicant provided reasonable explanation for failure to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">whether arguable case on the merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">application refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 93">supreme court (general civil procedure) rules 2005 rr 46.08, 49.02</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">application for leave to join fourth plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">joining of fourth plaintiff would postpone hearing date and add to cost and expense of preparation for hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">course previously taken was a deliberate commercial decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">prejudice to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">risk of multiplicity of proceedings if proposed fourth plaintiff not joined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">application granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 254">costs thrown away to be paid by plaintiff on indemnity basis and paid forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">application for leave to file expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">filing of expert evidence would have effect of vacating trial date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">delay by plaintiff in seeking to adduce expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">no explanation by plaintiff of reasons for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">prejudice to defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">some losses cannot be compensated by costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 137">application for leave denied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">prejudgment administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">failure to provide transcript and recordings to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">appellant already possessed transcript and recordings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">inquisitional process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">tribunal not obliged to play recordings of previous hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">no breach evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">discretion to refuse evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">evidence relevant to issue in dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">discretion miscarried practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">whether to allow evidence outside time for filing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">need to adjourn final hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">case management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">principles of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 1866">justice prevails over breach of court order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 572">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 572">timetable for filing evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 572">application to file additional evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 572">whether court should exercise discretion to permit reception of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 572">whether reception of evidence would cause unfair prejudice to other party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 572">where other party has closed case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1680">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1680">application for leave to appeal interlocutory judgment that refused leave to rely on evidence filed outside fixed timetable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1680">application refused.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 552" id="cs0">As well as delay and an apparent lack of diligence in prosecuting the claim sought to be raised by the proposed pleading, another factor to which significant weight must be attached in balancing the considerations for and against leave to amend is any prejudice which would be suffered by the other party if leave were granted. "Prejudice", in this context, has a broad connotation and comprehends, for example, the disadvantage suffered by one party upon the other's late application for vacation of a trial date (as in Menzies v CRCI Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 118) , or arising from very late production of evidence on affidavit (as to which see Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623 , per Finkelstein J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 769" id="cs1">But it is within the inherent justice of the Court. And the Rules of Court expressly permit it. "
 In Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623 Finkelstein J suggested that the approach taken in JL Holdings be revisited, particularly when a case involves significant commercial litigation. At [5] his Honour said:

 "I am of the firm view that parties should not be treated as leniently as they have been in the past. Commercial parties expect this approach from the Courts and their expectation should be met.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] QSC 218" id="cs2">[45] In Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd, [18] Finkelstein J suggested that the High Court in J L Holdings confined its decision to a case where costs would provide full compensation to the party not in default, and noted that these days, there was an increasing gap between the benefit of a costs order and the amount which a party was required to pay its lawyers.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 209" id="cs3">46 Mr Lindberg further contends that, in dealing with applications which would delay the trial of a proceeding, a judge is entitled to weigh in the balance the strain the litigation imposes on litigants, particularly if they are personal litigants rather than business corporations, the anxieties occasioned by facing new issues and the raising of false hopes. He submits that Courts now take into account the strain which litigation may place upon those involved and the natural desire of most litigants to be freed, as quickly as possible, from the anxiety, distraction and disruption which litigation causes. [21] Mr Lindberg refers to and relies on Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Limited, [22] Ketteman v Hansel Properties Limited, [23] Bomanite Pty Ltd v Slatex Corporation Australia Pty Ltd, [24] Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd, [25] Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd, [26] Winn v Brahe [27] and Chameleon Mining NL v Murchison Metal Ltd. [28] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 303" id="cs4">That passage from JL Holdings does not state and should not be taken as stating some general or universal proposition that a party is entitled to an adjournment so long as the opposing party is looked after by an award of costs. As many decisions since JL Holdings have stated, the "attainment of justice" is a goal that is not achieved without a proper consideration of the facts in any given case : Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623 , [2]; Cassar v Hans Pet Constructions Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1386 , [18]-[24]; Chameleon Mining NL v Murchison Metals Ltd [2009] FCA 137 , [9]-[15]; Finerty v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1136 , [29]---[31]; Smolle v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2008] FCA 1065 , [68]; Williams v Calivil Park Holsteins Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 31 , [20]-[21]. The basic premise was clearly enunciated by Lindgren J at [52] in Thoo v Kelly [2008] FCA 830 ; (2008) 169 FCR 470:
The refusal of an adjournment may amount to a denial of procedural fairness if it is likely to deny a party a reasonable opportunity to present his or her case ( Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj [2002] HCA 11 ; (2002) 209 CLR 597 at [40] per Gaudron and Gummow JJ ( Bhardwaj ); Touma v Saparas [2000] NSWCA 11 at [27] ). The procedure that will satisfy the demands of procedural fairness may differ in order "to meet the particular exigencies of the case" ( Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81 ; (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 615 per Brennan J). As I stated in Ali v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1415 ; (2005) 41 AAR 410 at [27] :

Ultimately, each complaint of a failure to accord procedural fairness by reason of the refusal of an adjournment turns on its own facts. Whether an adjournment should be granted is a matter within the discretion of the trial Judge (or Tribunal), to be resolved according to the overall requirements of justice in the particular circumstances [citation omitted]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 93" id="cs5">178 In making those observations, I am well aware of the comments of the High Court in the JL Holdings case, to the effect that, although case management considerations may be relevant, justice, not case management, must be the court's paramount consideration. However, I respectfully agree with the observation of Finkelstein J in Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GCMA Pty Ltd [25] to the effect that the JL Holdings decision is often (wrongly) relied upon in cases where a simple costs order will not do justice to the parties. I am not satisfied that a simple costs order will do justice here. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 254" id="cs6">The approach which I ought to take in this application is, in my view, covered by what was said by Finkelstein J in Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1623 at paragraphs 4 to 5. The principal considerations which I have to bear in mind is the prejudice, direct or indirect, to the defendants; the impact of the delay on the plaintiff's part on the conduct of these proceedings; and the reasons for the delay. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 137" id="cs7">The plaintiff's application relies substantially on the principles stated by the High Court in Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] HCA 1 ; (1997) 189 CLR 146 . However, in Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623 , Finkelstein J observed at [2] that:
 [P]arties do incur losses resulting from delay that can never be compensated by a costs order.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1866" id="cs8">68 Allegations of bias impact on the integrity of the Tribunal, and should be carefully and fully considered. Undoubtedly an adjournment would have been necessary if the evidence was accepted. However, while the Federal Magistrates Court has an exceptionally busy case load, there was no indication by his Honour of case management issues impacting on the exercise of his discretion: see, eg, Black Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623. There was no suggestion that if an adjournment were granted the first respondent would be prejudiced in the conventional way other than as to costs, although there is a public interest in hearing refugee matters expeditiously: see Sali v SPC Ltd [1993] HCA 47 ; (1993) 116 ALR 625 , 628-29; Bloch v Bloch [1981] HCA 56 ; (1981) 180 CLR 390 , 395-96; and SZKMS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2008) FCA 499 at [29] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 572" id="cs9">25 It is also observed by Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ in Queensland v JL Holdings at page 154 that:
 Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation but it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of a court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim. Those are observations reflect the views of an ultimate appellant court. Obviously enough, their application will differ in the context of particular cases and especially will differ in relation to an application of this nature, made in the course of a trial, in terms of whether prejudice will be occasioned to an opposing party. It must be said that in this court the reception of Queensland v JL Holdings has not been, with the very greatest of respect, an entirely subordinate one. In this regard and in the very particular context of the case before his Honour, in Black and Decker Australasia Pty Limited v GMCA Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1623 on 23 October 2007, Finkelstein J observed at para 3 that a state of affairs whereby case management directions were overlooked had as one of its chief causes what his Honour described as "the chilling effect" of the High Court's decision in Queensland v JL Holdings .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] HCATrans 662" id="cs10">The electronic citation is [2007] FCA 1623.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1680" id="cs11">

1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of Finkelstein J given on 23 October 2007: Black  Decker (Australasia) Pty Ltd v GMCA Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1623.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">appointment of receivers to property of directors and officers of corporate group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">pending investigation by australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">extension of orders to property held on trust by third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">whether power to make receiver orders extends to property held under discretionary trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">nature of beneficiary interest in discretionary trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">whether contingent interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">exhaustive discretionary trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">closed class of beneficiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">non-exhaustive discretionary trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">open class of beneficiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 814">scope of power to make orders under s 1323 of the corporations act 2001 (cth) and s 23 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">cpt custodian pty ltd v commissioner of state revenue  commissioner of state revenue v karingal 2 holdings pty ltd  land tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">unit trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">registered proprietors of land were trustees of unit trusts in which taxpayers held issued units</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">trustees also held issued units in similar trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">taxpayers assessed for land tax as owners of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">whether holder of issued units in these trusts is an "owner" of the land for the purposes of the land tax act 1958 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">whether holder of issued units in a trust which itself holds issued units in a further trust, the trustee of which is the registered proprietor of land, is an "owner" of the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">whether holder of only some of the issued units of a unit trust stands in a different position to a beneficiary owning all issued units</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">relevance of the rule in saunders v vautier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">relevance of statutory definition of "joint owners".  trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">whether "unit trusts" form any distinct class of trust the characteristics of which inform the meaning of the statutory term "owner"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">whether whenever the legal estate in property is vested in a trustee there must be some person entitled to beneficial ownership.  trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">beneficiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">rule in saunders v vautier of beneficiaries' entitlement to terminate trust where sui juris and together absolutely entitled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 53">whether the rule applies when trust makes provision for trust property to be available for satisfaction of trustee's and manager's fees.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">social welfare</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">assets test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">carer payment entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">assets in court-ordered trust funds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">whether the social security act 1991 (cth) requires that assets in a trust fund created by order of the court are to be taken into account in valuing the assets of the beneficiary of that fund</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">entitlement of beneficiary's carer to a carer payment under part 2.5 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">whether beneficiary's interest in a private trust is property that is an 'asset' within the meaning of s11 the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">nature of beneficiary's interest in the trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">meaning of 'property' in s11 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">operation of s198e of the act in determining qualification for a carer payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 166">whether the trust is a designated private trust for the purposes of part 3.18 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">chief commissioner of stamp duties v william francis buckle  ors  stamp duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">deed of settlement establishing discretionary trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">trust property comprised land purchased with proceeds of two loans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">duty assessed on supplemental deed altering destination of corpus of trust property in default of appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">ad valorem duty payable in respect of "unencumbered value of the property ... conveyed"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">identification of property conveyed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether duty payable on unencumbered value of assets which comprised the trust fund or amount which took into account vicissitudes inherent under the deed of settlement.  trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">nature of trustee's right of exoneration and recoupment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether trustee's right constitutes beneficial interest in trust assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether trustee's right an encumbrance on the interests of beneficiaries conveyed which is to be disregarded for purposes of s 66(1) of the stamp duties act 1920 (nsw).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">first home owners act 1983</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">recipient of assistance had never resided or intended to reside in dwelling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">recipient deemed never to have been "prescribed person"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">section 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">whether operation confined to time when application for assistance made and granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">section 37(6a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 628">recovery of "amount of assistance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">social services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">unemployment benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">student</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">enrolled in full-time law course</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">undertaking full-time temporary employment as high school teacher</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">whether eligible for unemployment benefit at expiry of teaching contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">whether "engaged in a course of education on a full-time basis"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">whether statutory test refers to nature of enrolment or nature of participation in course of study.  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">social security act 1947</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">unemployment benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">criteria of eligibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">"engaged in a course of education on a full-time basis"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">"full-time basis"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">ss.116 and 136</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1989] FCA 200">legislative histories.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">disability support pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">reduction of rate of disability support pension following attribution to income from a protective trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">formerly assessment made based on deeming provisions in part 3.10 of social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">whether income from a protective trust should be wholly attributed to sole beneficiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">whether the trust a 'controlled private trust'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">whether a person who cannot manage their own affairs can have effective control of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">whether secretary's discretion to decide beneficiary not an attributable stakeholder enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">whether attribution of trust to beneficiary discriminatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] AATA 1048">decision under review affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 508">disability support pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 508">assets in excess of allowable limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 508">whether an entitlement under a will is an asset</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 508">asset if an attributable stakeholder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 508">criteria for determining if not an attributable stakeholder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 508">criteria satisfied here: testamentary disposition not an asset</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 282">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">applicant inherited moneys from his sister via her will</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">established a trust and invested the money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">applicant says it is for the benefit of his children aged 18 and 20 so that they can have the money when they reach the age of 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">applicant says he has had no benefit from the moneys as he does not have a cheque book, and does not access the funds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">however he has full control and meets the source test for the trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">dsp accordingly reduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2009] AATA 987">decision under review affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 37">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 37">review of decisions to cancel disability support pensions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 37">whether attribution of trust assets permissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 37">whether trust is a 'controlled private trust'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 37">whether discretionary objects of a non-exhaustive trust have alone or together measurable interests in the corpus or income of the trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 37">s 1207v(2)(d) of the social security act 1991 (cth).  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 37">not a 'controlled private trust' by virtue of s 1207v(2)(d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">applicant is a member of a couple with his wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">ssat decided she is an attributable stakeholder in a trust of which she is a beneficiary, class guardian and class appointor, her associates are the other beneficiaries being her siblings and she is a director of the company which is the trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">finding by centrelink and ssat of 20 percent attribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">decision not challenged by wife and overpayment refunded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">applicant challenged on basis that the attribution of his wife should be assessed at 0 percent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">evidence heard from wife and her brother the other director of the trustee company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">attribution principles considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2008] AATA 1083">decision affirmed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 1048" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 508" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 282" id="cs2">Having helpfully reviewed the authorities in point, Kenny J explained in Elliott v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1293 ; (2008) 249 ALR 182 at 197 the operation of s 1207V(2) as follows. (Her Honour's reasoning was upheld by a Full Court of this Court ( sub nom . Secretary, Department of Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs v Elliott [2009] FCAFC 37 ; (2008) 174 FCR 387)) ;

 [48] Section 1207V(2) is intended to ensure that those assets that an individual can control and therefore utilise are taken into account in assessing whether that individual qualifies for a benefit under the Social Security Act .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 987" id="cs3">In that regard I was referred by Mr Lozynsky who represented the Respondent, to the Federal Court decision of Elliot v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1293 ; (2008) 103 ALD 318 , and noted that the Court there held that the term "control" signifies control that would permit the individual alone, or with associates, to control the Trust income or capital, so that the individual alone, or with associates, can enjoy economic benefits. In Elliot , the Court held that the Elliotts, acting with or without their daughter, did not have any legal or practical capacity to take control of the Trust, and that they therefore should not be attributed with the beneficial interests in the corpus or income of the trust fund which were capable of aggregation. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 37" id="cs4">1 This is an appeal from a judge of this Court allowing an appeal by the respondents ('the Elliotts', sometimes individually referred to as 'Mr Elliott' or 'Mrs Elliott') from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the AAT'): Elliott  Anor v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1293 ; (2008) 249 ALR 182. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 1083" id="cs5">It was submitted that a finding of 100 percent attribution should be made against Mrs O'Meara. By regard to a recent decision of Kenny J in Elliot v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1293 it was submitted that control signifies control that would permit the individual alone or with associates to control the Trust income or capital so that the individual alone or with associates can enjoy economic benefits. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1323 Power of Court to prohibit payment or transfer of money, financial products or other property</title>
<title id="l5">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l6">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 11 Assets test definitions</title>
<title id="l7">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 198 Qualification--disabled adult or disabled adult and dependent child</title>
<title id="l8">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1207A Definitions</title>
<title id="l9">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1207B Relatives</title>
<title id="l10">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1207C Associates</title>
<title id="l11">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1207P Designated private trusts</title>
<title id="l12">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1207V Controlled private trusts</title>
<title id="l13">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1207X Attributable stakeholder, asset attribution percentage and income attribution percentage</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">orders and directions pursuant to australian meat and live-stock corporation act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">purported rescission of export approval for cargo of live sheep to saudi arabia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">effect thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">irrelevant and relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 139">natural justice.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 Applications for review of conduct related to making of decisions</title>
<title id="l3">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 77EA Minister may order goods to be detained</title>
<title id="l5">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 77ED Minister may authorise delivery of detained goods into home consumption</title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l8">CUSTOMS (PROHIBITED IMPORTS) REGULATIONS 1956 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l10">FIREARMS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l11">FIREARMS ACT 1996 - SECT 4 Definitions</title>
<title id="l12">FIREARMS ACT 1996 - SECT 5 Amendment of Schedule 1 list of prohibited firearms</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">claim of infringement of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">parties were publishers of rival chinese language newspapers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">respondent's chinese title was registered as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">respondent's chinese title consisted of four characters handwritten in the li shu style of calligraphy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">applicants' chinese title used three of the same characters in computer generated li shu calligraphy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">whether primary judge erred in determining that the applicants' title was deceptively similar to respondent's title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">significance of difference in meaning of titles caused by differing third characters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">whether non-descriptive words should be emphasised in considering deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">significance of difference between handwritten and computer generated calligraphy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">relevance of evidence of buyer confusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">cause of buyer confusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">whether evidence of buyer confusion was hearsay evidence. copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 201">whether primary judge correctly assessed respondent's claim of substantial reproduction of its chinese title.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 6 Definitions</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 7 Use of trade mark</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 17 What is a trade mark?</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 120 When is a registered trade mark infringed?</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 122 When is a trade mark not infringed?</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">conflict of laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">local proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">similar proceeding in united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">application to set aside order staying local proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">whether local court clearly inappropriate forum for dispute as a whole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">anti-suit injunction in relation to united states proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">common substratum of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">principles governing grant of anti-suit injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">whether proceeding vexatious or oppressive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">principles relating to issue of anti-suit injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">relationship between anti-suit injunction and stay proceeding  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">australian and foreign copyright proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">joint ownership in cinematograph films</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">whether known to australian law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 194">whether australian law applicable to united states proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">matrimonial proceedings pending in foreign jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">clearly inappropriate forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">"vexatious"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">"oppressive"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">relevance of foreign proceedings with respect to same issue or controversy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 51">considerations relevant to stay of matrimonial proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 72">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 72">grant of interim stay pending proceedings in another jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 72">appropriate forum where same issues to be determined.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">action brought in australian state for damages for negligent accounting advice given in foreign country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">loss suffered there and in australian state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">place of commission of tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 55">appropriate forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">cause of action arising out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">greek island cruise booked in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">ticket not given to passenger until commencement of cruise in greece</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">foreign jurisdiction clause on ticket</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">whether term of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">action brought in new south wales for injury sustained by passenger on cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">application by defendant for stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 32">forum non conveniens.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 500(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">a newly appointed general managing partner incorporated in the cayman islands of a limited partnership registered in england commenced proceedings in this division against the former general managing partner and three other entities in the babcock  brown group claiming damages for breach of fiduciary duties owed to the partnership and for breach of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">the first of those other entities (an australian corporation) is in liquidation and the proceedings were commenced without the necessary statutory leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">leave was opposed by the liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">requirements for leave and whether it should be granted in this case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">the former general managing partner (the fourth defendant in these proceedings) which is incorporated in the cayman islands commenced proceedings in england for monies allegedly owed to it under the partnership agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">one of the two other entities sued in this court (the second defendant) is an australian corporation, the other is a limited partnership in delaware</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">they are also plaintiffs in the english proceedings claiming declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">the plaintiffs in the english proceedings (the second, third and fourth defendants here) brought motions to set aside the summons against them, to set aside service, to dismiss the proceedings or to stay them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">summary dismissal and striking out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">whether plaintiff's case should be struck out as not disclosing a cause of action or as embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">standing of the plaintiff to sue for damages suffered by "the partnership"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">partnership agreement contains covenant consenting to the exclusive jurisdiction of the english courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">construction and operation of the provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 270">whether this jurisdiction is clearly inappropriate for the proceedings</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 270" id="cs0">146 In Bella Products Pty Ltd v Creative Designs International Ltd [2009] FCA 868 ; (2009) 258 ALR 538 at 543 [22] Finkelstein J said the following:

 21. In TS Production LLC v Drew Pictures Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 194 ; (2008) 172 FCR 433 , both at trial and on appeal, the Federal Court applied the Voth and Oceanic Sun Liner test in respect of an application for a temporary stay of an action pending in an Australian court when there was a similar action pending in a United States court. Regrettably (all the more so because I was on the appellate bench) that approach was wrong.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FOREIGN EVIDENCE ACT 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>