Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 265">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 265">prospectus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 265">disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 265">claim that the disclosures in a prospectus contravened s 728 of the corporations act 2001 (cth) ('the act')</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 265">whether a subscribing shareholder is entitled to commence a proceeding under s 729(1) of the act to recover from the company that issued the prospectus the loss suffered as a result of the subscription without rescinding the contract to acquire the shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 265">whether s 729(1) is subject to the rule in houldsworth v city of glasgow bank (1880) 5 app cas 317</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">breach of fiduciary duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">corporations law, s232(6)-corporations act 2001, s182</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">money transferred to company in which directors had an interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">knowing receipt within barnes v addy (1864) lr 9 ch app 244</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">personal and proprietary remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">remedial constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">whether rescission necessary (d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 844">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 844">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 844">application for letter of request to english court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 844">request to be based on declarations of this court as to status of administrators and company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 844">request that english court make such orders as this court may make</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">formation of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">exchange of correspondence, meetings and purchase orders with terms and conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">assessment of actual terms of contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">where respondents did not object to printed terms or put forward their own terms over a prolonged period the applicant's terms held to be incorporated into the contract  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">whether breach of implied term that goods reasonably fit for purpose where respondent well aware of that purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">whether implied warranty goods existed that were of merchantable quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">whether respondents breached implied term to use reasonable care and skill  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">whether respondents breached duties to exercise reasonable care and skill in designing and manufacturing product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">whether the applicant relied upon respondents' expertise  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">liability of both respondents in tort and contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">business sold by first respondent to second respondent without applicant's knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">second respondent continued to deal with applicant as before</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">both respondents in breach of express and implied terms of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">held jointly and severally liable  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">applicant sought damages for loss of reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">respondent led evidence of lack of reliability in product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">evidence disclosed general lack of brand awareness in product area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">unable to find applicant enjoyed a high reputation for reliability  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">past economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">calculation of direct losses as a result of product recall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">losses due to negative publicity and required re-direction of monies away from research and development into marketing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2001] FCA 1862">assessment of impact on lost sales and market share taking into account other external factors and commercial contingencies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">pilmer v the duke group limited (in liquidation)  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">calculation of loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">contract of retainer for valuation of subject of takeover bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">plaintiff company effected takeover in reliance on valuation made in breach of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">had valuation been accurate plaintiff would not have proceeded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">consideration included cash and issue and allotment of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether plaintiff suffered loss by issue of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether damages include sum representing market value of shares issued under agreement.  companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">share capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">maintenance of capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company limited by shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company issuing new shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">issue and allotment otherwise than for cash</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether company suffers loss by reason of issuing new shares.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">fiduciary duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">duty of loyalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">conflict of duties and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">conflict of duty and duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">accountant retained by company to give independent expert valuation report to be placed before shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether accountant owed fiduciary duties to company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">principles of causation in equity.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">equitable compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">reduction for contributing fault.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">corporations and securities panel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">acquisition of shares and conduct in relation to shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">power to declare unacceptable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">power to make orders, after declaration, to protect rights or interests of persons affected by acquisition or conduct or to ensure that takeover proceeds as if acquisition or conduct had not occurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">whether panel invested with judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), ss. 71 , 72</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">australian securities commission act 1989 (cth), s. 171</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1991] HCA 58">corporations law of victoria, ss. 731, 732, 733, 734.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 594">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 594">application to dismiss for want of prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 594">whether any inordinate and inexcusable delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 594">prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 594">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 594">justice of the occasion not demanding dismissal of proceeding for want of prosecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1531">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1531">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1531">application under s 477(2b) of corporations act 2001 (cth) for approval nunc pro tunc of agreement between liquidator and creditor for funding of litigation to recover for benefit of unsecured creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1531">considerations relevant to exercise discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1531">application under s 564 of act for order that funding creditor be given advantage over other unsecured creditors on account of recovery made as a result of the funding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1531">considerations relevant to exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1359">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1359">approval sought by receiver to enter into agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1359">principles on which court will grant approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1214">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1214">application under s 477(2b) of corporations act 2001 (cth) (the act) for approval nunc pro tunc of two litigation funding agreements between creditor and liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1214">whether liquidator had adequately explained omission to seek approval before agreements were entered into and his delay in remedying that omission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1214">application under s 564 of the act for order that funding creditor be paid in full out of monies recovered as a result of the funding agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1214">other main creditor's proof of debt had been rejected by liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1214">pending proceeding by that creditor in supreme court of new south wales to establish its entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1214">premature for court to deal with application under s 564 at this stage.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">powers of liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">exercise and control of liquidator's powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">ex parte application by liquidator for directions arising from final orders on bell liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">judgment debtors seek to suspend payment of judgment debt pending appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">directions sought with regard to proposed trust, undertaking and charge arrangements and approval to provide charges for benefit of judgment debtors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">court's function is not to determine substantive matters in dispute between liquidator and third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">determination required as to whether applicant's proposed approach to suspension issue is lawful, reasonable and consistent with liquidator's obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">application by judgment debtors for suspension order to be dealt with in due course by appeal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2009] WASC 235">directions and approval sought by liquidator granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">s 447(2b) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">approval of sale of business of subsidiary of financial services company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">subsidiary also in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">whether transaction is proper realisation of assets of parent company or otherwise assists in the winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">whether sale expeditious and beneficial to administration of the winding up   held: approval of sale agreement granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 629">costs of the application be costs in the winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">general principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">interference with discretion of court below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">re-exercise of discretioncorporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up voluntarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">supervision of liquidators by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">inquiry under s 536(1)(a) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">faithful performance of dutiescorporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up voluntarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">supervision of liquidators by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">inquiry under s 536(1)(b) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">whether a complaint was made corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up winding up voluntarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">supervision of liquidators by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.21">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">inquiry under s 536(3) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.22">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators to answer an inquiry corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.23">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.24">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.25">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">duties and liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.26">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">in voluntary winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.27">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">factors relevant to the discretion to ordering an inquiry under s 536 corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.28">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">size of anticipated return to creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.29">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">position of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.30">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">proportionality between cost and recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.31">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">failure to apply for directions before commencement of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.32">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">litigation funding statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.33">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.34">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.35">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">s 536(1)(a) , s 536(1)(b) , s 536(3) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">court-appointed liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">entry into agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">able to subsist more than three months</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">no prior approval under s 477(2b) of corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">application to extend "period" for approval under s 1322(4)(d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">no relevant period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">s 1322(4)(d) not applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">power of court under s 479(3) to direct liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">liquidator directed to act on agreement as though approved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">implied incidental powers of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">prior to approve agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">power under s 1322(4)(a) to declare entry into agreement and agreement not invalid  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">implied incidental power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">citing from="[2007] FCA 1985">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">gregory winfield hall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">first plaintiff (2032/04, 2685/04)philip patrick carter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st plaintiff (2032/04), 2nd plaintiff (2685/04)reynolds wines ltd (rm appointed) (in liq)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">2nd plaintiff (2032/04), 2nd respondent (2685/04), 1st plaintiff (4870/05)reynolds vineyards pty ltd (rm app) (in liq)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">3rd plaintiff (2032/04), 2nd plaintiff (4870/05)peter renwick poolman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st defendant (2032/04), 1st respondent (2685/04)malcolm geoffrey irving</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">2nd defendant/cross claimant (2032/04), 2nd respondent/applicant (2685/04)constance helen poolman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">3rd defendant (2032/04), defendant (4870/05)kalivise pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">4th defendant (2032/04)sennabeau pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">5th defendant (2032/04)morecraft kitchens  joinery pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">6th defendant (2032/04)john giske martini</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st cross defendant/cross claimant (2032/04), 3rd respondent (2685/04)rupert clifton-bligh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">2nd cross defendant (2032/04), 1st respondent (2685/04)sandra lee yates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st cross defendant (2032/04), 4th respondent (2032/04)commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">citing from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">defendant/applicant (2685/04)</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 594" id="cs0">26 The circumstances in which the present proceeding was issued in the absence of an indemnity to issue proceedings, and the circumstances in which the subsequent agreements were entered into are as set out in the reasons of Gordon J in Stewart, in the matter of Newtronics Pty Ltd. [18] It is convenient to set out those circumstances here. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1531" id="cs1">There has been a difference of judicial opinion as to whether it is appropriate to extend time in a case such as the present. Orders extending time were made by Warren J (as the Chief Justice then was) in Empire (Aust) Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Vince [2000] VSC 324 ; (2000) 35 ACSR 167 (see [15]-[16]) and by Gordon J in Stewart, in the matter of Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375 (see [30]). However, in Re Read and Another [2007] FCA 1985 ; (2007) 164 FCR 237 ( Read ), French J (as the Chief Justice then was) expressed disagreement with the approach taken in those two cases. His Honour was of the opinion (at [32]-[39]) that s 1322(4)(d) of the Act could not be relied upon to extend time under s 477(2B). French J's reason was that s 477(2B) did not specify a "period for" the making of an application for approval under s 477(2B). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1359" id="cs2">These principles were set out in Stewart, in the matter of Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375 as follows (at [26]):

 (1) the court does not simply "rubber stamp" whatever is put forward by a liquidator.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1214" id="cs3">It is established, however, that approval may be granted nunc pro tunc : see Empire (Aust) Nominees Pty Ltd (in liq) v Vince [2000] VSC 324 ; (2000) 35 ACSR 167 ; Stewart, in the matter of Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375 ( Newtronics ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] WASC 235" id="cs4">57 The principles applicable to an application under s 477(2B) were reviewed by Gordon J in Re Newtronics Pty Ltd; Ex parte Stewart [2007] FCA 1375. The role of the court is to grant or deny approval to the liquidator's proposal. Its role is not to develop some alternative proposal which might seem preferable. Further, the task of the court is not to reconsider all of the issues which have been weighed up by the liquidator but simply to review the liquidator's proposal, paying due regard to his or her commercial judgment and knowledge of all of the circumstances of the liquidation, satisfying itself that there is no error of law or ground for suspecting bad faith or impropriety, and weighing up whether there is any good reason to intervene in terms of the expeditious and beneficial administration of the winding up.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 629" id="cs5">The principles relevant to the exercise of the Court's power under this provision were summarised by Gordon J in Stewart, in the matter of Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375 as including the following:
 (1) The court does not simply rubber stamp whatever is put forward by a liquidator. (2) A court will not approve an agreement if its terms are unclear. (3) The role of the court is to grant or deny approval to the liquidator's proposal. Its role is not to develop some alternative proposal which may seem preferable. (4) In reviewing the liquidator's proposal, the task of the court is ---

(and her Honour quotes from Corporate Affairs Commission v ASC Timber Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1381 ; (1998) 16 ACLC 1 ,642 at 1,650):

... not to reconsider all the issues which have been weighed up by the liquidator in developing the proposal, and to substitute its determination for his in a hearing de novo, but simply to review the liquidator's proposal paying due regard to his or her commercial judgment and knowledge of all the circumstances of the liquidation, satisfying itself there is no error of law or ground for suspecting bad faith or impropriety, and weighing up whether there is any good reason to intervene in terms of the "expeditious and beneficial administration" of the winding up.
 (5) Generally, the court grants approval under section 477(2B) of the Act only where the transaction is a proper realisation of the assets of the company or otherwise assists in the winding up of the company.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWCA 64" id="cs6">146 For the most part, the law concerning the duty of liquidators to collect assets by taking recovery proceedings was developed before commercial litigation funding became widely available in Australia. But courts have had occasion to consider the impact of the availability of litigation funding in various contexts, most notably in applications for judicial approval of funding agreements of more than three months' duration under s 477(2B) or s 506(1A) and in applications for judicial directions under s 479(3) or 511. Some cases that have countenanced liquidators commencing proceedings with litigation funding were listed by Palmer J (Main Judgment at [385]): Re Tosich Construction Pty Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 219 ; Re Addstone Pty Ltd (in liq) (1998) 83 FCR 583 ; Buiscex supra; Imobridge supra; Re ACN 076 673 875 Ltd supra; Anstella Nominees Pty Ltd v St George Motor Finance Ltd [2003] FCA 466 ; (2003) 21 ACLC 1347 ; Leigh, re King Bros [2006] NSWSC 315 ; Stewart, re Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375. We would add to the list UTSA Pty Ltd (in liq) v Ultra Tune Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [1997] 1 VR 667; (1996) 21 ACSR 251 ; Re Feasty's Family Restaurant Pty Ltd (1996) 14 ACLC 1058 ; Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd (in liq) v Balanced Securities Ltd [2008] FCA 471 ; (2008) 245 ALR 726 at [140] - [152], reversed on other grounds sub nom IMF (Australia) Ltd v Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd (in liq) [2009] FCAFC 9. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 484" id="cs7">6 My main concern, on the last occasion, was the absence of evidence about the prospects of sale of the three properties together. Under s 477(2B) , the Court has regard to the commercial judgment of the liquidator, but "that is not to say it rubber stamps whatever is put forward by the liquidator. " ( Re Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 9 ACSR 83 at 85 ) In Re Spedley Securities Ltd (in liq) (1992) 9 ACSR 83 at 86, Giles J said the court will interfere where there is:

 "a lack of good faith, some error in law or principle or real and substantial grounds for doubting the prudence of the liquidator's conduct. "

(See also Re Aslor Pty Ltd (1997) 24 ACSR 612 at 613; Corporate Affairs Commission v ASC Timber Pty Ltd (1998) 29 ACSR 109 at 118; Stewart re Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375 at [26] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1985" id="cs8">39 With respect to the different conclusions reached in Empire (Aust) Nominees Pty Ltd [2000] VSC 324 ; 18 ACLC 738 and Stewart, in the matter of Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375 , I do not consider that s 1322(4)(d) can be relied upon to extend time under s 477(2B).  38 Recently in Stewart, in the matter of Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375 , an order was made pursuant to s 1322(4)(d) that "... the period for making an application under s 477(2B) of the Act for approval of the entry by the plaintiffs into each of the following agreements is extended ...". Orders were also made giving approval to the plaintiff liquidators to enter into each of a number of agreements. A declaration was made under s 1322(4)(a) that none of the agreements in issue in that case was invalid by reason of having been entered into prior to obtaining the approval of the Court. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] NSWSC 1330" id="cs9">They should have approached the Court for directions under CA s.511(1)(a) as to whether they were justified in commencing the litigation in view of the terms of the proposed funding agreement with IMF, the likely return to creditors even if the proceedings were wholly successful, and the cost of the proceedings generally. Applications to the Court by liquidators for directions as to whether funded litigation should be commenced are frequent: see e.g. Movitor Pty Ltd (in liq) v Sims (1996) 64 FCR 380 ; Re Tosich Construction Pty Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 219 ; Re Addstone Pty Ltd (in liq) (1998) 83 FCR 583 ; Buiscex Ltd v Panfida Foods Ltd (in liq) (1998) 28 ACSR 357 ; Re Imobridge Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2000] 2 Qd R 280 ; Re ACN 076 673 875 Ltd (in liq) [2002] NSWSC 578 ; (2002) 42 ACSR 296 ; Anstella Nominees Pty Ltd v St George Motor Finance [2003] NSWCA 71 ; (2003) 21 ACLC 1 ,347; Re AP  PJ King Pty Ltd (in liq) [2006] NSWSC 315 ; Stewart, re Newtronics Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1375. 386 In such applications ASIC may be given notice so that it may make its own submissions. The terms of the funding agreement are usually disclosed to the Court although not necessarily published in the judgment.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 440D Stay of proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 477 Powers of liquidator</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 530A Officers to help liquidator</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 530B Liquidator's rights to company's books</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 564 Power of Court to make orders in favour of certain creditors</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596A Mandatory examination</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596B Discretionary examination</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1322 Irregularities</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">copyright in plans and drawings of project homes and houses built to their design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">s 14(1) copyright act 1968 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">"substantial part"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">quality rather than quantity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">whether work copied was a substantial part of the work in suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">whether sufficient similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">role of appellate court in relation to primary judge's factual findings held: primary judge's findings upheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 46">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">alleged copyright in substantial part of house plans and built houses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">al fresco quadrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">subsistence of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">whether "logical development" of existing plans of third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">whether substantial part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">whether actual copying</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">significance of lies as to derivation of respondent's design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 375">whether sufficient similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">designs and constructed homes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">whether infringement by copying</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">copyright act 1968 (cth) ss 14(1) and 31 (1)(b)(i)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">sufficient objective similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">substantial part of the whole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">common place features</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">subjective copying overlap</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">causal connection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">derivation of works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">access  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">personal liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">whether authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1509">copyright act 1968 (cth) ss 36(1) and 13 (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">copyright in plans and drawings of project home and in home built in conformity with them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">"substantial part"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">quality rather than quantity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">nature of quality which makes something a "substantial part" of copyright work in suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">alleged infringer intending to copy but to incorporate differences so that market would not associate the two plans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">whether plans, viewed objectively, so similar that one reproduced the other or a substantial part of the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 78">role of appellate court in relation to primary judge's finding of striking similarity.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">power to vacate before order passed and entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 6">circumstances in which power exercised.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">literary work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">"computer program"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">"expression, in any language code or notation"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">whether confined to written expression or representation of instructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">reproduction of work includes reproduction of substantial part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">reproduction of substantial part of computer program</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">whether reproduction must be a computer program</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 2">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 10(1) "computer program", "literary work", "material form", 14(1), 31(1)(a), 36.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">artistic work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">reproduction of substantial part of original work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">reproduction in three-dimensional form of work in two-dimensional form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">special defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">whether three-dimensional object would not appear to persons not experts in objects of that kind to be reproduction of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">onus of proof of special defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 59">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 14(1)(b) , 21 (3),71.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">whether respondent infringed applicants' copyright in plans and houses containing an "alfresco quadrant"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">subsistence and ownership of copyright conceded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">whether the alfresco quadrant a substantial part of the applicants' works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">whether the alfresco quadrant was reproduced in any of the respondent's works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">whether the respondent's works were independently created</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">differences in detail and dimension, but overall arrangement of spaces in applicants' and respondent's alfresco quadrants was substantially similar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">respondent's designers had access to, and made use of and/or copied, the applicants' works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 246">infringement claims established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">alleged infringement of copyright of project home house plans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">subsistence of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">"substantial part" and house plans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">general principles regarding damages or account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">cost of the proceedings a factor in the award of exemplary damages.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">application to set aside default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">application granted.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">application to adduce tendency evidence.  copyright act 1968 (cth), ss.10 , 13 (1), 14 (1)(b), 21 (3), 31 (1)(a)(i), (b), 32 (3), 36(1), 115(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 185">(4), 116, 126(a), 196(1), 196(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">whether recordings of a musical work infringed copyright in an earlier musical work by reproducing a substantial part of the earlier work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">causal connection between works not denied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">objective similarity determined by aural and visual comparison of musical elements of the works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">emphasis is on quality rather than quantity of what is taken</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">copied features must be a substantial part of the copyright work, not of the infringing work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">overall appearance of infringing work may differ from copyright work.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">whether respondents misrepresented to collecting societies that there was no infringement in the copyright work and that they were entitled to 100% of royalties from infringing work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">continuing representations made by respondents to collecting societies.  restitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">whether respondents were unjustly enriched at the expense of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">whether mistake of fact or law was made by collecting societies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 29">claim did not fall within recognised categories of restitution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 307">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 307">consideration of an appeal from the magistrates court of queensland exercising federal jurisdiction in relation to relief arising out of the contended infringement by the respondents of the copyright subsisting in the appellant's house plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 307">consideration of the extent to which objective similarity in the absence of direct evidence of actual use of a plan might give rise to an inference of use and reproduction of a substantial part of the work in which copyright is said to subsist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 307">consideration of the approach to damages</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 246" id="cs0">Barrett was unable to establish any specific instance of Ms Wilson's access to the Barrett works prior to 27 April 2003. It is well established that in the absence of direct evidence of a respondent's access to or copying of the copyright works, the causal link may be inferred: S.W. Hart at 472; Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 309 (" Clarendon Homes "); Inform Design  Construction Pty Ltd v Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 912 ; (2008) 77 IPR 523 (" Inform Design ") at [69]. Barrett submitted that in this case, the court should infer access from the surrounding circumstances, including the Dennis corporate context and goals prevailing at the time. Barrett submitted that it was probable that Ms Wilson had access in that context, whether by her direct inspection of the Barrett houses, infringing houses, plans, photographs or advertisements, or by instructions or materials transmitted to her by Dennis Metro division design or other staff who, prior to 27 April 2003, had the opportunity for, and, in some instances, proven access to, the Barrett works. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 185" id="cs1">Leaving aside questions of account of profits, damages, and contribution/indemnity, in the context of copyright and "project homes" (and plans thereof), the following sample of cases (and regularly cited other authority therein, such as SW Hart  Co Pty Ltd v Edwards Hot Water Systems , Autodesk Inc v Dyason (No 2) , Data Access Corporation v Powerflex Services Pty Ltd , Francis Day  Hunter Ltd v Bron , and Ladbroke (Football) Ltd v William Hill (Football) Ltd ) [134] details relevant principles: Beck v Montana Constructions Pty Ltd , [135] Lend Lease Homes Pty Ltd v Warrigal Homes Pty Ltd , [136] Ancher, Mortlock, Murray  Woolley Pty Ltd v Hooker Homes , [137] LED Builders Pty Ltd v Eagle Homes Pty Ltd , [138] Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd , [139] Tolmark Homes Pty Ltd v Paul , [140] Dixon Projects Pty Ltd v Hallmark Homes , [141] Eagle Homes Pty Ltd v Austec Homes Pty Ltd, [142] Tamawood Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd , [143] Metricon Homes Pty Ltd v Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd , [144] Inform Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd , [145] A V Jennings Ltd v Bogdan. [146] Having regard to the principles set out in these (and other) cases to which I will refer in detail as required, I move to a consideration of the following questions, which were noted earlier in these reasons. Does copyright subsist in the plans for and the house built by Solitaire? [88] I note here some of the jurisprudence regarding "similarity": "... where there is substantial similarity, this constitutes, prima facie, evidence of copying and of access...." Tolmark Homes Pty Ltd v Paul (1999) 46 IPR 321 at [33] (Beaumont J: internal citations omitted); "It is not necessary to show that the copy is a perfect reproduction of a substantial part of the plaintiff's work. " Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 309 at [37] (Full Court); "... there must be sufficient objective similarity between the infringing work and the copyright work, or a substantial part thereof, for the former to be properly described, not necessarily as identical with, but as a reproduction or adaptation of the latter. " Inform Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 912 ; (2008) 77 IPR 523 at [59] (Weinberg J --- who was quoting Lord Diplock from the regularly cited Francis Day  Hunter Ltd v Bron [1963] 1 Ch 587 at p.623). [89] I note here the regularly made point that there is no copyright in an "idea", only in its expression. See, for example, Tamawood Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78 ; (2004) 61 IPR 378 at [41] "The taking of an idea, as distinct from its expression, from a copyright work will also not constitute an infringement, since there is no copyright in ideas. Such matters are dealt with later in these reasons. It is nonetheless apt to note here a few of the authorities to which reference is made later. On conscious/subconscious copying, see, for example, the comments of the Full Federal Court in Clarendon Homes (Aust) Pty Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd (1999) 46 IPR 309 at [24]  [39]; Inform Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 912 ; (2008) 77 IPR 523 at [62] (Weinberg J). On "substantial part", see the Full Court decision in Tamawood Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78 ; (2004) 61 IPR 378 at [55] ; Gold Peg International Pty Ltd v Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1521 ; (2006) 225 ALR 57 at [172] and, at [188], "The taking of quite small portions of a work may still amount to a "substantial part" for the purposes of the legislation. " (Crennan J) Her Honour's judgment was not disturbed on appeal: Kovan Engineering (Aust) Pty Ltd v Gold Peg International Pty Ltd (2007) 234 ALR 241.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 29" id="cs2">The passage from the judgment of Gibbs CJ in S. W. Hart , in which his Honour encapsulated the notion of reproduction into the elements of objective similarity and causal connection, has been applied in this Court on many occasions: see eg Tamawood Ltd v Henley Arch Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 78 ; (2004) 61 IPR 378 at [43] ; Inform Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 912 ; (2008) 77 IPR 523 at [60] ; Metricon Homes Pty Ltd (ACN 005 108 752) v Barrett Property Group Pty Ltd (ACN 088 015 267) [2008] FCAFC 46 ; [2008] FCA 712 ; (2008) 248 ALR 364 (" Metricon Homes v Barrett ") at [64]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 307" id="cs3">Exact copying is rarely the conduct in controversy. Normally an inference is sought to be drawn in the face of quantitative features of the plan in suit, present in the plan under challenge, or by correspondence with a substantial part qualitatively of the plaintiff's plan, or both. If the contention is that a substantial part of the plan in suit has been taken, a question of "fact and degree" arises ( Inform Design and Construction Pty Ltd v Boutique Homes Melbourne Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 912 per Weinberg J at [71]) and the "protected element may arise out of a combination of elements, any one of which considered individually might not qualify as sufficiently original to attract copyright" ( Inform Design , per Weinberg J at [71] [emphasis added]). An allegation of substantial reproduction of the work by reproduction of a substantial part will be made out if what is taken is an essential or material part of the work in suit. The phrase "substantial part" refers to the quality of that taken and the importance it bears to the work as a whole ( Tamawood v Henley Arch at [50], [52] and [54]; Dixon Investments Pty Ltd v Hall 18 IPR 490 at 494 per Lockhart, Spender and Ryan JJ; Autodesk Inc. v Dyason [No.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 14 Acts done in relation to substantial part of work or other subject-matter deemed to be done in relation to the whole</title>
<title id="l2">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 21 Reproduction and copying of works and other subject-matter</title>
<title id="l3">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 31 Nature of copyright in original works</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">amended notice of appeal and written submissions an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">appeals made available for the correction of error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">obligation on appellant to identify error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">no proper grounds of appeal identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">no error in the findings of primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">appeal dismissed costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">consideration of costs limitations under the workplace relations act 1996 on other federal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">costs of half the consolidated proceedings awarded at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">no error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">institution of appeal an unreasonable act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">costs of appeal awarded practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">unrepresented litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">usual standards of behaviour required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">scandalous accusations of judicial misbehaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 30">parts of written submissions removed from the court file</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2086">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2086">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2086">applicant failed altogether after refusing an offer of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2086">circumstances not within o23 r 11 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2086">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 2086">claims made under the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 2086">whether there are consequent restrictions on the power to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 120">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 120">incorporation of terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 120">employment contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 120">whether particular representations in policy and procedures manual were terms of employment contract.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">privacy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">whether polling of employees by call centre on behalf of a union a breach of national privacy principles by either</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">if so whether private right of action courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">scope of jurisdiction pursuant to privacy act 1988 (cth) copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">whether copyright in internal company telephone directory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">whether annotation of directory breach of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">whether use of annotated directory to create electronic database breach of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">whether a case for additional damages or account of profit workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">whether telephone polling of employees on behalf of a union during postal voting for s 170lk agreement done with intent to coerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">whether proceeding instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">where proceedings instituted under workplace relations act against one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">further party added and other federal causes of action added</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 637">effect of s 347 of workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 812">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 812">where workplace relations claim and discrete federal claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 812">where joinder of two applicants with separate claims</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 812" id="cs0">This was a discrete federal claim (cf Thompson v Big Bert Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 792).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1919" id="cs0">14 The " independent country information " would fall within s 424A(3)(a) and, as held by the Federal Magistrate, there would be no breach of s 424A(1). See also SZFQL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1522 and SZCMD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1003 at [20] per Ryan J. Insofar as a complaint is made as to the inadequacy of reasons provided by the Tribunal, it may be noted that the obligation imposed upon the Tribunal is that set forth in s 430(1) of the 1958 Act. That subsection provides as follows:

 Where the Tribunal makes its decision on a review, the Tribunal must prepare a written statement that:

 (a) sets out the decision of the Tribunal on the review; and
 (b) sets out the reasons for the decision; and
 (c) sets out the findings on any material questions of fact; and
 (d) refers to the evidence or any other material on which the findings of fact were based.

The reasons and decision of the Tribunal have again been reviewed and there is no apparent failure to comply with s 430(1), in particular, s 430(1)(b). The learned Federal Magistrate was of the same conclusion. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">application by liquidator of corporation to examine a person about the corporation under part 5.9 of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">possible claim by corporation against valuer for professional negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">whether court has power to order valuer to produce policies of insurance in respect of the valuations on examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">whether this "relate(s) or will relate to the (corporation's) examinable affairs".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">notices pursuant to s.155 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">validity of notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">whether exposure of person to liability for pecuniary penalty will excuse from furnishing information and producing documents as required by notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">necessary degree of certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">necessary element of relatedness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">where notice is partially invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">harsh, oppressive and unreasonable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1977] FCA 7">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1977] FCA 7">notice by commission to furnish information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1977] FCA 7">validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1977] FCA 7">application for declaration that requests improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1977] FCA 7">relevance of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1977] FCA 7">person to whom requests should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1977] FCA 7">trade practices act 1974 , ss. 155 , 163a. the applicant sought a declaration, pursuant to s. 163a of the trade practices act 1974 , that certain questions put to it by the respondent (the chairman of the trade practices commission) under s. 155 of the act were not proper requests to furnish information within the meaning of s. 155.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 118">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 118">appeal from single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 118">where challenge to notices issued by official receiver under s 77c of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 118">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 118">consideration of jurisdiction to review s 77c notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 118">whether notices were oppressive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 118">nature of court's power to review notice on ground of oppression</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 118" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 19AA Power of investigation of bankrupt's affairs</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 77C Power of Official Receiver to obtain information and evidence</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 81G Effect of non-compliance with notice</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 267B Failure of person to provide information</title>
<title id="l6">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l7">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 155 Permanent reduction of income</title>
<title id="l8">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 264 Commissioner may require information and evidence</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">whether defects in pleading incapable of being cured</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">whether leave to replead should be granted   constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">executive power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">s 61 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">circumstances in which exercise of executive power amenable to review   equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">fiduciaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">whether commonwealth owes fiduciary duty to its nationals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">whether content of any such duty justiciable   torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">whether commonwealth owes duty of care to its nationals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">misfeasance in a public office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">whether aiding and abetting commission of criminal offence amounts to misfeasance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">harassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">whether tort of harassment extends to mental distress    held: motion granted in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">pleading struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2009] FCA 228">leave to replead granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">appeal from an order of a judge of this court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">application to review a decision of the minister for foreign affairs and the migration review tribunal (the tribunal) was dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">the tribunal affirmed decision to cancel visa on the ground that the minister determined the appellant was a person whose presence in australia is or would be contrary to australia's foreign policy interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">minister for foreign affairs' decision made under the migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">decision is a privative or purported privative clause decision and therefore cannot be reviewed under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) (the adjr act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">if decision was made pursuant to a prerogative power it still cannot be reviewed under the adjr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">whether the decision is justiciable pursuant to s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">decision is susceptible to review depending upon the character and nature of the decision and not upon whether the decision was made under a legislative instrument or prerogative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 69">if the matter was remitted to the minister for foreign affairs the minister would make the same decision</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 69" id="cs0">The primary judge identified in Aye v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 978 ; (2009) 111 ALD 546 at [34] , the particulars which were said to support the claim that the determination was void and ought to be quashed which constituted the first two grounds for relief:

 (a) The foreign minister denied the applicant procedural fairness by not inviting comment from her before making the determination.

 (b) The foreign minister took into account an irrelevant consideration, namely, that the applicant is the daughter of someone subject to sanctions.

 (c) The foreign minister failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely, the fact that he did not have anything adverse whatsoever against the applicant herself.

 (d) The foreign minister asked the wrong question in that he asked whether the applicant was the child of a senior member of the Burmese regime when he should have asked whether the applicant, being a child of a senior member of the Burmese regime, associated herself with her father in support of the regime by any of her actions or in any other way supported the Burmese regime.

 (e) The foreign minister exercised a discretionary power in accordance with a policy without regard to the merits of the particular case.

 (f) The foreign minister misinterpreted the words "associate" and "supporter" to mean a child of a senior member of the Burmese regime whereas, contextually, the true meaning of the words is someone retrospectively associated with or supporting whatever activities of the Burmese regime that had brought about the sanctions.

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 5 Operation of the Constitution and laws [see Note 3]</title>
<title id="l4">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 61 Executive power</title>
<title id="l5">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l6">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76 Additional original jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l7">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 77 Power to define jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l8">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l9">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5E Meaning of purported privative clause decision</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 29 Visas</title>
<title id="l14">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 116 Power to cancel</title>
<title id="l15">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l16">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l17">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 477 Time limits on applications to the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l18">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 477A Time limits on applications to the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l19">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l20">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l21">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 2.43 Grounds for cancellation of visa (Act, s 116)</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 799">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 799">disability discrimination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">sex discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">complaint under the sex discrimination act 1984 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">review of federal magistrate's decision dismissing application for review of a decision made by the human rights and equal opportunity commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">whether no evidence for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">whether decision was against the weight of evidence. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">appeal from federal magistrate's decision under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) by way of rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">where original decision limited to one issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 12">whether power to substitute judgment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">purvis v new south wales (department of education and training)  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">suspension and subsequent exclusion from school of pupil who repeatedly assaulted teachers and other pupils</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">where pupil's behaviour a consequence of brain damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether pupil discriminated against on the ground of disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">meaning of "disability"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether obligation to provide reasonable accommodation or make reasonable adjustments for persons with a disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether treatment of pupil was less favourable than treatment that would be given to a person without the disability in "circumstances that are the same or are not materially different"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether comparator is a person who does not engage in violent behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">whether pupil received less favourable treatment "because of" his disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 62">disability discrimination act 1992 (cth), s 5(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 641">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 641">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 641">challenge to merits of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 641">whether decision so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have made it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 641">consideration of medical evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 641">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 641" id="cs0">In relation to ground 3(c), the unreasonableness ground is only made out where the unreasonableness reaches "a high level indeed": SBMD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1433. Gummow J said in Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611: 137. ...where the criterion of which the authority is required to be satisfied turns upon factual matters upon which reasonable minds could reasonably differ, it will be very difficult to show that no reasonable decision-maker could have arrived at the decision in question.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l1">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 4 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 5 Direct disability discrimination</title>
<title id="l3">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 10 Act done because of disability and for other reason</title>
<title id="l4">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 11 Unjustifiable hardship</title>
<title id="l5">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 24 Goods, services and facilities</title>
<title id="l6">HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l8">HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 - SECT 46PH Termination of complaint</title>
<title id="l9">HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 - SECT 46PO Application to court if complaint is terminated</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">differences between strike-out and summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">defective pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">discovery in aid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">whether permissible trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">barnes v addy knowing receipt claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">necessary elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">requisite state of knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">declaration of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1920">whether substantial shareholder notice amounts to declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>