Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">east australian pipeline pty limited v australian competition and consumer commission  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">third party access regime for natural gas pipelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">east australian pipeline pty limited ("eapl") owned a natural gas pipeline which was a covered pipeline under the national third party access code for natural gas pipeline systems ("the code")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">eapl was required to submit to the australian competition and consumer commission ("the accc") an access arrangement for use of the pipeline by third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">accc rejected eapl's proposed access arrangement and adopted its own access arrangement incorporating a reference tariff based on a lower initial capital base ("icb") than that proposed by eapl</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">accc arrived at an icb in a novel fashion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">section 8.10 of the code sets out a number of factors which are to be considered in establishing the icb for an existing pipeline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">proper construction of s 8.10 of the code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">whether s 8.10 of the code permits a novel asset valuation methodology.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">administrative review of a regulatory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">australian competition tribunal ("the tribunal") varied the determination by the accc substituting a new icb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">grounds for review included a ground that "the exercise of the relevant regulator's discretion was incorrect or unreasonable having regard to all the circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">nature and scope of the tribunal's jurisdiction to review decision of the accc.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">judicial review of the outcome of an administrative review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">full court of the federal court set side the tribunal's determination of the icb -whether error of law within the meaning of s 5(1)(f) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 44">whether there was jurisdictional error attracting the federal court's jurisdiction under s 39b(1) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">purported appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">where respondent applied for australian citizenship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">where applicant minister's delegate refused to grant citizenship on the basis of criminal record and consequent failure to satisfy good character requirements of australian citizenship act 1948 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">where respondent applied to tribunal for review of minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">where respondent charged with a criminal offences prior to hearing before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">where tribunal made orders deferring hearing pending outcome of criminal charges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">where tribunal had already deferred hearing for periods which cumulatively exceeded 12 months</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">whether tribunal's power to defer hearing under australian citizenship act was spent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">whether power to defer hearing under s 14a of australian citizenship act supplanted tribunal's general power to adjourn or power to adjourn under administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">whether tribunal's orders a 'decision' within the meaning of the administrative appeals tribunal act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">notice of objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">whether federal court of australia has jurisdiction to entertain application under administrative appeals tribunal act or administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">whether tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">whether relief available under s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth).  held : orders of tribunal deferring hearing of application do not constitute a 'decision' within the meaning of s 44 of the administrative appeals act or within the meaning of s 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">relationship between s 13(11)(a) and s 14a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">relief available under s 39b of the judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 436">appeal allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 47">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">employee suffered an injury while delivering mail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">australian postal corporation accepted liability to pay compensation but later determined the employee had no current entitlement to compensation under s 16 and  s 19 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">determination affirmed on review by the corporation but later set aside by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">whether the tribunal erred in setting aside the corporation's determination that it had no present liability to pay compensation to the employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1751">held: the tribunal set aside the determination of the corporation without having addressed the correct legal questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1829">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1829">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1829">grounds of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1829">whether administrative appeals tribunal has jurisdiction to consider reformulated claim as to employment injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1829">whether proposed reformulation of claim vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">nature of appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">review under s 5 of the adjr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">whether the tribunal misunderstood evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">'kind of death' of veteran under veterans' entitlements act 1986 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 914">whether denial of procedural fairness by tribunal in not accepting a submission put to it jointly by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions of law invite broad enquiry as to the construction and operation of statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions seek to characterise a question of fact as a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions invite court to examine evidence and other material before the tribunal and conduct a rehearing on aspects of the controversy determined by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether convenient to make for court to make findings of fact under s 44(7).  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">meaning of 'injury' under commonwealth employees' compensation act 1930 (cth) and compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether mere experiencing of event or condition necessary for development of a disease contracted by gradual process constitutes 'injury'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">s 101(2)(a) of commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether inchoate or contingent liabilities in respect of a disease contracted by gradual process transferred to administering authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">interaction of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) and veterans' entitlements act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether compensation payable in relation to service of defence force member where provision made for the payment of pension.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">nais v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">substantial delay between first tribunal hearing and tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether delay resulted in real and substantial risk of prejudice to appellants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether prejudice to appellants can be inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether delay by administrative tribunal constitutes denial of procedural fairness or failure to conduct review as required by law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether decision of administrative tribunal may be set aside following substantial delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">effect of delay on question of assessing appellants' demeanour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">calculation of the period of delay.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">migration act 1958 (cth), s 420 provides for an objective of administrative review that is "fair, just, economical, informal and quick"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">relevance of s 420 to complaint of delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">special considerations relevant to delay in asylum cases.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">significance of delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">grounds for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether delay affected the refugee review tribunal's capacity to make a proper assessment of demeanour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether there was a real and substantial risk that the tribunal's capacity to assess the appellants was impaired.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">assessment of fairness of procedures followed by administrative decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">substantial delay between first tribunal hearing and tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">limited role of courts performing judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">relevance of general notions of fairness and justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">relevance of authority on delay in context of appeals against judicial determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">importance of contextual factors in assessing complaint of delay.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">substantial delay between first tribunal hearing and tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.28">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">appropriate remedy where denial of procedural fairness due to substantial delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.29">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">failure by appellants to seek mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.30">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1298">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1298">reviewable decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1298">power to disturb findings underpinning a s 14 determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">where comcare liability determined to exist pursuant to s 14</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">where decision-maker purported to determine that liability would cease at a particular time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">whether decision a bar to future claims for compensation practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">whether challenges alternative to s 44 appeal appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) s 5  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 991">consideration of principles applicable to applications under s 29(7) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">deductions for losses incurred in prior taxation years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">continuity of business test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">change in beneficial ownership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">whether change occurred before or after takeover of new business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">same business test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">involvement in same industry not sufficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) s 80e(1) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">duty on administrative appeals tribunal to state its findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">whether duty complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">consequences of non-compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) s 43(2b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">griffith university v tang  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">exclusion of respondent from phd candidature programme conducted by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">where appellant is a body created by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">power of appellant to function as a university and to confer higher education awards derived from statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision to which the judicial review act 1991 (q) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision made under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">relevance of nature of relationship subsisting between parties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s20/2002  appellant s106/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">temporary protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">where refugee review tribunal found that applicant was an unreliable witness and discounted evidence said to be corroborative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was affected by actual bias or by a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">distinction between discretionary decisions and decisions involving the finding of facts essential to the exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision evidenced an erroneous approach to the finding of jurisdictional facts.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">section 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">extent to which the content of the constitutional writs is affected by common law developments in administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">availability of constitutional writs in proceedings that include an appeal concerning related issues.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">unavailability of review of factual or evidentiary merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether relief available under migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ") or under the constitution , s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was not authorised by the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.22">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was marred by error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.23">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal would have made it.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 71">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 71">application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 for review of decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 71">injuries sustained during eligible service under veterans' entitlements act 1986</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 71">whether applicant denied procedural fairness in breach of requirements of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 71">whether breach of legal duty by tribunal amounts to a "question of law" under the administrative appeals tribunal act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 71">procedure to be adopted where tribunal rejects concession agreed to by parties before hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 71">whether proceedings under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act were appropriate.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">betterment assessments based on deposits to taxpayer's claim that moneys were withdrawn from the account from time to time for gambling and the sum resulting from wins and losses was then rebanked, so that the assessments involved double-counting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">effect in the circumstances of the decision in federal commissioner of taxation v. dalco [1990] hca 3 ; (1990) 168 clr 614</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">whether taxpayer was required to show in an appeal to the administrative appeals tribunal not only that the assessments were too high, but also the precise details of his liability to tax.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">administrative appeals tribunal gave oral reasons, but after learning of applicant's intention to appeal, over a month later, delivered changed reasons in writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">effect of new reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">whether tribunal was functus officio</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">whether s. 43 of the administrative appeals tribunal act applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">whether matter should be referred back to the tribunal differently constituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 359">effect of tribunal not having dealt with the case as it was actually presented on behalf of the applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">application for judicial review of decision of administrative appeals tribunal rejecting in part a claim for compensation under s.29 compensation (australian government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">distinction between "aggravation" and "acceleration" within the meaning of s.29(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">whether decision maker must consider acceleration independently of aggravation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">whether period of compensable incapacity following an acceleration of a pre-existing degenerative disease could be finite in some cases and open-ended in others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">whether tribunal's finding as to termination of compensable period lacked a proper foundation in the absence of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 116">onus of proof regarding date of termination of compensable period.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">statutory requirement to provide draft report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">failure to consider submissions made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">need to separately address expert opinions in submission  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">application to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">argument not raised below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">limited factual dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 33">application to adduce further evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">meat inspector</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">lumbar spine injury followed by aggravations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">legal argument regarding transfer of worker from state jurisdiction to aqis (federal) overseeing meat inspection since 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">applicant received workers compensation re injury to l5/s1 disc prolapse in 1985</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">damages payout from state of victoria in 1992</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">aggravations to vulnerable spine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">1989 aggravation subject of this claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">respondent held that effect of 1989 aggravation was no longer current since 2008</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.9">citing from="[2011] AATA 114">decision under review affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 807">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 807">market misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 807">market manipulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 807">banning order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 807">construction of s 1041a of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 807">whether sale and purchase transactions had effect of creating artificial price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 807">relevance of intention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 146">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 146">jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 146">administrative appeals tribunal bound by earlier ruling of a judge of the federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 146">earlier ruling incorporated the legal elements which sustained it. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 146">whether the jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal is limited by the description of an injury in a claim for compensation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">appeal on a question of law pursuant to s 44(1) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">applicant contended that the administrative appeals tribunal failed to consider and address submissions which were seriously advanced by the applicant and worthy of serious consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">applicant argued a case for compensation made under the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) in the alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">alternative based upon aggravation of an existing psychiatric condition not considered or addressed by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">tribunal committed reviewable error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">tribunal's decision set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1149">matter remitted to the tribunal for reconsideration according to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">adequacy of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">a reference to the evidence or other materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">no evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">inquisitorial procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">duty to assist the administrative appeals tribunal   compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">the injury for which compensation was claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">nature of injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1057">evidence in support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">tribunal review of decision of the defence force retirement and death benefits authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">defence force retirement and death benefits act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">invalidity pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">invalidity classification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">percentage incapacity for civil employment under s 34(1a)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">physical and mental impairment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">alcoholism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">personality disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether error of law on part of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether tribunal considered a serious submission regarding previous tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">improvement of condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">range of civil employment available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">whether reasons of tribunal inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">relevance of previous related decision of tribunal   held: tribunal erred in law in reaching its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">failure to take into account serious submission regarding previous tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">failure to take into account relevant considerations regarding improvement of condition and range of civil employment available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">tribunal erred in only considering two of the nine employment types available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">reasons inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">decision of the tribunal set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.23">citing from="[2009] FCA 302">matter remitted to tribunal for determination according to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">claims for rehabilitation and compensation under safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">two decisions of administrative appeals tribunal remitted back to tribunal for further consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">whether tribunal has jurisdiction to re-hear first reviewable decision in relation to shoulder injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">whether tribunal erred in finding liability for additional conditions not the subject of notice of injury in relation to first reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">whether tribunal made findings of fact in support of which there was no evidence or forgot or ignored evidence in relation to second reviewable decision for claimed hernia injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.7">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">whether injuries claimed for were sustained in the course of applicant's employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.8">citing from="[2009] AATA 158">nature and conditions of applicant's employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 1155">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 1155">whether jurisdiction to hear 2003/4 injury or aggravation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 1155">whether injury notified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 1155">whether claim made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 1155">section 53 issue regarding 2003/4 injury claim made in 2007</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 1155">constellation of symptoms in arms, thumbs, fingers and wrists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 1155">decision affirmed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 33" id="cs0">Equally, a failure to expressly mention particular material is not conclusive that it has not been taken into account. A decision-maker is not normally required in its reasons for decision to refer to " every item of evidence that was before it " and an " omission to refer to a piece of evidence does not necessarily require a conclusion that it has been overlooked ": cf. SZEHN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1389 at [58] per Lindgren J. See also: SZHPI v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 306 at [15] per Branson J; Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 at [64] , [2008] FCA 236 ; 101 ALD 245 at 259 per Bennett J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 114" id="cs1">Mr Richards referred to [53, 56 and 57] of Bennett J's decision in Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 ; (2008) 101 ALD 245 in support of his argument that because the Respondent had not had the opportunity of reviewing a claim for nature and conditions , the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim by Mr Szabo. He referred to Bennett J's statements as follows from Sellick :

 53 In Abrahams v Comcare [2006] FCA 1829 ; (2006) 93 ALD 147 , Madgwick J recognised that different descriptions can be given of the one injury and said at [18] that 'a broad, generous and practical interpretation' should be made to recognise the understanding of the lay person making the claim and different levels of medical advice and to understand whether the lay person completing it was asserting a different injury to that notified. The Tribunal said that, in applying the principles in Abrahams, it was satisfied that the proper interpretation of the claim made by Mr Sellick was for 'an injury which caused pain in the upper back, which included, but was not limited to, pain in the area of the right scapula'.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 807" id="cs2">Such duplication of proceedings is, in my view, most undesirable. It may be that Parliament intended that there be both a limited right of appeal from a decision of the Tribunal pursuant to s 44 of the AAT Act and a right to judicial review pursuant to the ADJR Act. Such intent would seem unlikely, save for the presence of para (y) in Sch 1. The exclusion of one category of Tribunal decisions, and the exclusion of one sub-set of that category, suggest that it was intended that Tribunal decisions be generally reviewable under the ADJR Act. The availability of two avenues for review raises the likelihood of multiple proceedings with attendant additional cost. Some consideration should be given to legislative clarification of the position so that the duplication of proceedings can be avoided. In any event it is appropriate that, despite my personal reservations, I follow the decision of Bennett J in Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 ; (2008) 245 ALR 561 at 580-582.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 146" id="cs3">3 The error of law asserted by the applicant was that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) erred in concluding, based upon the judgment of Bennett J in Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 ; (2008) 101 ALD 245 , that it was confined to determining whether the applicant was entitled to compensation in respect of soft tissue injury to his shoulder. That was the decision of the AAT: see Sellick v Australian Postal Corporation [2009] AATA 158 at [31] . In effect, the AAT concluded that it could not give consideration to what Bennett J at [71] of her reasons referred to as the "additional conditions", namely aggravation of a degenerative condition of the spine, and chronic strain of interspinous ligament. As indicated, we agree with Buchanan J that the AAT properly concluded that it was confined to consider whether the soft tissue injury to the right shoulder of the applicant had resolved. Her Honour considered that the scope of the decision reviewable by the AAT in respect of pain in the right shoulder was so limited, applying Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753 ; (1999) 56 ALD 84.  10 The decision of the AAT was appealed to this Court under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). On 7 March 2008 Bennett J found that the AAT had committed errors of law with respect to each claim and remitted each matter for further attention ( Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236).
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1149" id="cs4">The applicant did argue before the Tribunal that his underlying condition had been aggravated by his employment in the sense contemplated by the definitions in s 4 of the Act. The argument was not developed much but this does not detract from the fact that the argument was put. The Tribunal was obliged to turn its mind to the argument and to deal with the question of aggravation. It was a significant part of the applicant's case before the Tribunal. The argument was seriously advanced by the applicant and was worthy of serious consideration. Whilst it is true that the Tribunal is not required to consider and address every submission made to it, serious submissions of the type to which I have just alluded must be addressed ( Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 79 ALR 267 at 276---277 per Jenkinson J). It is an error of law for the Tribunal not to consider such a submission and not to reveal its consideration of that submission in its Reasons for Decision (see Hartnett v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2004] FCA 50 at [50] ; and Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 ; (2008) 245 ALR 561 at [88] ---[89] (pp 579---480)). This statement of principle is consistent with the more general statements of principle directed to giving content to the concept of error of law made by the Full Court in Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCAFC 192 ; (2002) 69 ALD 581 at [59] (pp 597---598). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1057" id="cs5">To the extent that the Corporation in the present appeal seeks to raise a contention as to whether or not there was " any evidence " in support of particular findings, it may be noted that in Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 at [91] , 101 ALD 245 at 264, Bennett J observed that " [a] decision made under an enactment is invalid if there is a total absence of evidence to satisfy an essential element of the decision ". </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 302" id="cs6">The law is clear that failure to consider a submission of substance which, if accepted, would be capable of affecting the outcome of the case, constitutes an error of law ( Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184 ; Casarotto v Australian Postal Corporation [1989] FCA 116 ; (1989) 86 ALR 399 at 403; Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v FCT (1988) 79 ALR 267 at 276; Sellick [2008] FCA 236 at [35] ). Was the submission of the Authority in relation to previous consideration of the issue of Mr House's personality disorder a submission of substance? In my view it was. While the Tribunal was not necessarily bound by its early decision --- indeed the decision of the Full Court in Morales [1998] FCA 334 ; (1998) 82 FCR 374 indicates that the issue was one of discretion --- nevertheless the submission should have been considered by the Tribunal in reaching its decision. Failure by the Tribunal to do so in my view constitutes an error of law. Second and third grounds of appeal
  Clearly a failure by the Tribunal to advert to the content of submissions does not of itself necessarily mean that the matter was not considered ( Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v National Health and Medical Research Council (1996) 71 FCR 265 at 279, Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 at [35] ). However in this case, aside from a bare reference by the Tribunal to the existence of its 2004 decision (at [4]), there is no indication that it had taken into consideration the submission of the Authority concerning previous consideration by the Tribunal of issues relating to Mr House's personality disorder. This absence of reference to its earlier decision is particularly surprising where the Tribunal has found that Mr House had greater incapacity than that found by the Tribunal in 2004, notwithstanding the evidence before the Tribunal in these proceedings that, between August 2001 and November 2004, inter alia , Mr House had stopped drinking ( House [2008] AATA 38 at [15]), was no longer an active alcoholic ( House [2008] AATA 38 at [52] ), and Mr House was maturing and less affected by his personality disorder ( House [2008] AATA 38 at [60] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 158" id="cs7">The parties have liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to costs.

 ...................[sgd]......................
 J. W. Constance, Senior Member

 CATCHWORDS

 COMPENSATION --- claims for rehabilitation and compensation under Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) --- two decisions of Administrative Appeals Tribunal remitted back to Tribunal for further consideration - whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to re-hear first reviewable decision in relation to shoulder injury --- whether Tribunal erred in finding liability for additional conditions not the subject of notice of injury in relation to first reviewable decision --- whether Tribunal made findings of fact in support of which there was no evidence or forgot or ignored evidence in relation to second reviewable decision for claimed hernia injury ---- causation --- whether injuries claimed for were sustained in the course of applicant's employment --- nature and conditions of applicant's employment

 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth): Sections 4 , 5A , 14 , 53 , 54 , 60 , 62 , 64

 Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236

 REASONS FOR DECISION

 12 March 2009 Justice Tamberlin, Presidential Member
J. W. Constance, Senior Member
Dr M. D. Miller AO, Member

 These reasons relate to claims for rehabilitation and compensation by Mr Allan Sellick associated with his duties in relation to the sorting and delivery of mail whilst in the employ of the Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post). The matter has been referred back to this Tribunal for further consideration as a consequence of a decision of Bennett J delivered on 7 March 2008: see Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 wherein her Honour found that the Tribunal in an earlier decision of 1 March 2007 made errors of law in its reasons. The errors of law found by her Honour involved determinations that the Tribunal had failed to consider certain submissions and evidence or give proper reasons in relation to the way in which conditions arose out of the claimed injury.  In Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 , Bennett J reasoned that in finding liability under the SRC Act for additional conditions which had not been the subject of a Notice of Injury under s 53, a claim for compensation under s 54, a determination under s 60, or the first reviewable decision under s 62 and an application to the Tribunal under s 64, the Tribunal had failed to observe the limitations on its jurisdiction flying from these provisions, and that the procedural prerequisites to entitlement to compensation had not been observed. Section 53(1) of the Act provides for Notice of Injury or loss of or damage to property and reads:
 (1) This Act does not apply in relation to an injury to an employee unless notice in writing of the injury is given to the relevant authority:
 (a) as soon as practicable after the employee becomes aware of the injury ... section 54 provides that compensation is not payable to a person under the Act unless a claim for compensation is made by or on behalf of the person under s 54.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 1155" id="cs8">Ms Henderson acknowledged that Madgwick J in Abrahams indicated a broad interpretation was appropriate, but submitted that Ms Weekes had made a compensation claim in 2007, but that the notice of injury pursuant to section 53 had not been given back in 2003/4 when the injury was claimed to have occurred. She submitted notice and a claim were two different things. She submitted that Ms Weekes' telling Ms Ottway about wanting a job on the counter could not amount to notice of an injury under the Act, and in fact maintained that no notice of any injury had been given in 2004. Ms Henderson submitted that the 2007 claim form, which is the only claim Ms Weekes has submitted, did not mention aggravation of injury, and if Mr Richards now submitted that the claim was for two injuries, or for aggravation, then Ms Weekes had to claim separately for each. ( Australian Postal Corp v Sellick and Anor [2008] FCA 236 ; (2008) 101 ALD 245). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 988" id="cs9">29 Whilst it is the case that the Tribunal is required to consider the substance of the claims that are made that could affect the outcome of the review, the Tribunal does not have to deal with every point raised by an applicant ( Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs (2003) 75 ALD 630 at 641, Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission [1989] FCA 116 ; (1989) 86 ALR 399 at 402-3, Australian Postal Corporation v Sellick [2008] FCA 236 at [35] ). In this case, the Tribunal was undertaking a merits review. It was empowered on the review to exercise the same powers as an authorised review officer. There is no doubt that an authorised review officer has the power under s 135 of the Act to vary the decision of a Centrelink officer or to set it aside and substitute a different decision.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 5 Establishment of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l5">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 44 Oaths and affirmations</title>
<title id="l9">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l11">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l12">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l13">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 7 Provisions relating to diseases</title>
<title id="l14">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 44 Action for damages not to lie against Commonwealth etc. in certain cases</title>
<title id="l15">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 53 Notice of injury or loss of, or damage to, property</title>
<title id="l16">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 54 Claims for compensation</title>
<title id="l17">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 60 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l18">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 62 Reconsideration of determinations</title>
<title id="l19">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 64 Applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal</title>
<title id="l20">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 58 Vesting of property upon bankruptcy--general rule</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">murphy v overton investments pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lease for unit in retirement village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lessee liable to pay proportionate part of all expenditure incurred in operating village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate of likely expenditure given to prospective lessees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate did not include all expenditure being incurred in operation of the village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">accepted that respondent engaged in conduct in contravention of pt v of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">relief available under pt vi of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether appellants suffered "loss or damage" within meaning of ss 82 and 87 of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" confined to economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether incurring unexpected expenditure can be loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" is necessarily singular</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether loss or damage constituted only by any diminution in value of the lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether increased future contributions could be awarded as damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">michael marks  ors v gio australia holdings limited  ors  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether analogous with damages in tort or contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">distinction between "expectation" and "reliance" loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether damage caused "by conduct of" defendant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">variation of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">applicants purchase a water drilling business from the first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">applicants seek damages and a declaration that the contract has been rescinded by the applicants pursuant to ss. 82 and 87 of the act based on the respondents' misleading and deceptive representations contrary to s.52 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">principles to apply in assessing damages.  trade practices act 1974 (cwlth) ss 52 , 82 , 87  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">applicants purchased business from first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">applicants seeking damages pursuant to ss. 82 and 87 of act based on respondents' misleading and deceptive representations contrary to s. 52 of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 28">principles to apply in assessing damages. the applicants claimed damages for breach of s. 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth). the claim was founded on certain conduct and statements of the respondents (by themselves or their agents), which were said to have been relied upon by the applicants in agreeing to purchase, from the first respondent, a business which it carried on under the name "reliance drilling co.".  the respondents disputed the claim, and the first respondent cross-claimed for the balance of the purchase price. the applicants sought to set off their damages against what was found to be owing to the first respondent. in the course of his judgment his honour dealt with the legal principles applying to the assessment of damages under the act.  held: (1) whilst common law rules as to the measure of damages in tort may, in appropriate circumstances, provide a useful guide, no justification exists for confining the damages which are recoverable under ss. 82 and 87 of the trade practices act 1974 by reference to common law tests. the only limitations which exist in proceedings under the act are those expressed or inherent in the statutory provisions themselves. the statutory right to damages under s. 52 of the act serves a wider purpose and is intended to have a broader ambit than the common law actions of tort or negligent misstatement.  taco company of australia inc. v. taco bell pty. ltd. [1982] fca 136 ; (1982) 42 alr 177 , followed.  yorke v. ross lucas pty. ltd. (1982) 45 aljr 299 ; simpson ltd. v. hubbards pty. ltd. [1982] fca 210 ; (1982) 44 alr 695 ; gates v. city mutual life assurance society ltd. (1983) atpr 40-335 ; south australia v. johnson (1982) 42 alr 161 ; mcallister v. richmond brewing co. (n.s.w.) pty. ltd. (1942) 42 sr (nsw) 187 ; potts v. miller [1940] hca 43 ; (1940) 64 clr 282 ; doyle v. olby (ironmongers) ltd. [1969] ewca civ 2 ; (1969) 2 qb 158 , considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">jurisdiction of court to hear and determine all claims made by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">admissibility of similar fact evidence.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">lease of shops</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">knowledge of and reliance upon that conduct.  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">power of court to make orders compensating person suffering loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">discretion of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">powers to vary contract or arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 15">variation of lease.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1499" id="cs0">The nature of the applicant's claim against the first and second respondents is described in an earlier judgment I delivered in the proceeding: Humphries v Newport Quays Stage 2A Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1135. Since that time, the applicant has filed a Second Further Amended Statement of Claim in which she makes it clear that she had a conversation with her father, Mr Peter Humphries, and he recommended that the applicant look seriously at entering into a contract to purchase a villa and marina berth (see [56]). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">MISREPRESENTATION ACT 1972 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 924">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 924">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal affirming decision of social security appeals tribunal (ssat)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 924">ssat upheld decision of centrelink review officer to cancel the applicant's newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 924">applicant was required to sign a newstart activity agreement but did not do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 924">whether denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 924">whether delegation of decision-making powers valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 924">whether matter should be adjourned further to enable the applicant to obtain legal assistance</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 924" id="cs0">Shortly prior to the hearing of this appeal on 5 August 2009, Mr Zoia wrote to the Western Australia District Registry of this Court requesting an opportunity to read the transcript of a hearing to which the reasons in Zoia v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCA 661 relate. On the occasion of that hearing (which was to be the hearing of the appeal) it had been necessary to adjourn the substantive hearing of the appeal in order to consider Mr Zoia's argument that the appeal was a nullity. While the discussion which ensued at that hearing could have no possible bearing on the substantive appeal, the starting time of the appeal was nevertheless deferred to permit Mr Zoia the opportunity to read the transcript. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">(thirteenth respondent) file no: bs no 5969 of 2005 division: trial proceeding: originating application originating court: supreme court at brisbane delivered on: 9 november 2005 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 21 october 2005 judge: white j orders: as per attached schedules  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">other cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">scheme required to be registered not registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">acknowledgment by operator that scheme should be wound up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">proposal by operator that operator be appointed to wind up the schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">all the investors support the proposal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">no opposition from asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] QSC 326">where operators undertake extensive reporting to investors and asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">winding up by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">where court ordered that 15 unregistered managed investment schemes operated by the respondent company be wound up pursuant to s 601ee corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">where the issue of the identity of the person to carry out the winding up was to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">where asic sought an order that registered liquidators be appointed to wind up the schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">where respondent proposed to wind up the schemes subject to external control and/or supervision ordered by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">all factors relevant to the winding up of an unregistered scheme must be balanced in determining who should be the party given the responsibility for winding up the scheme and on what terms  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">winding up by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">where proposal to wind up unregistered managed investment schemes by transferring them to a registered scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2003] QSC 265">whether transfer of unregistered scheme to registered scheme amounts to winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 576">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 576">unregistered managed investment scheme in course of winding up pursuant to s.601ee by receiver appointed by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 576">application by receiver for direction as to appropriate method of distributing surplus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 576">jurisdiction to give such direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 576">need for order under s.601ee(2) causing defined basis of winding up to apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 576">relevant guidance from termination provisions of trust deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 576">allocation of loss among investors having "beneficial interest" in differing underlying investments where loss attributable to some investments only.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 451">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 451">unregistered managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 451">order for winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 451">need for orders to define framework for winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">corporate finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">whether investment clubs run by respondents were managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">whether schemes should be wound up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">whether companies participating in the operation of the schemes should be wound up on the just and equitable ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 520">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 520">winding up of unregistered managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 520">scheme insolvent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 520">motion to have winding up continued by newly appointed liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">failure to register scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">proposals by investors to complete scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">land purchased and substantial number of lots sold</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">developer seeking to wind up scheme upon completion of development</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">bank finance now finalised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">other adverse issues addressed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 692">orders in manner permitting completion of residential development the subject of the scheme approved</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 520" id="cs0">The plaintiffs in this proceeding have attempted to wind up an unregistered managed investment scheme ( the Scheme ) operating in contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ( CA ). The reasons for that course were outlined in my previous judgment in Lake Coogee Estate Management Pty Ltd ACN 115 352 504 v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2009] FCA 471 (Lake Coogee No 1 ) (and see also the earlier decisions of Nicholson J ( Lake Coogee Estate Management Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] FCA 1809 ; (2006) 60 ACSR 281 and Lake Coogee Estate Management Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2007] FCA 692).  The original orders granting that permission were made by Nicholson J in Lake Coogee [2006] FCA 1809 ; (2006) 60 ACSR 281 and in supplementary reasons in Lake Coogee [2007] FCA 692. In orders which I made in Lake Coogee No 1, the supplementary orders in Lake Coogee [2007] FCA 692 were amended to extend the period during which the Scheme was required to be completed but at the same time to improve the reporting of progress in the attempts to complete the Scheme to the investors in it. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 471" id="cs1">Before the Court are motions by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to vary orders made under two previous decisions. Orders granting permission to the plaintiffs as operators to wind up a Managed Investment Scheme (the scheme) were made in two decisions of Nicholson J ( Lake Coogee Estate Management Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] FCA 1809 ; (2006) 60 ACSR 281 and Lake Coogee Estate Management Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2007] FCA 692). The first was on 21 December 2006 and the second on 11 May 2007. Under order 4.2 of the orders made by his Honour the scheme was required to be completed by 11 May 2009, which is next Monday. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 692" id="cs2">1 These reasons are given in continuation of the reasons given in Lake Coogee Estate Management Pty Ltd v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] FCA 1809 ; (2006) 60 ACSR 281. They should be read with those reasons. Defined terms used there are repeated in these further reasons. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601EB Registration of managed investment scheme</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601ED When a managed investment scheme must be registered</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601EE Unregistered schemes may be wound up</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1012A Obligation to give Product Disclosure Statement--personal advice recommending particular financial product</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1012B Obligation to give Product Disclosure Statement--situations related to issue of financial products</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 717">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 717">application for leave to appeal interlocutory judgment re disqualification of presiding federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 717">whether power to grant application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 717">principles re grant of leave to appeal interlocutory judgment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 510">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 510">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 510">application for disqualification of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 510">whether apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 510">principles applied in determining whether apprehension of bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 297">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 297">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 297">design and construct tender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 297">plans.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 297">request for particular discovery and production of plans.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 156">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 156">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 156">design for construction of commercial premises.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 156">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 156">whether in the interests of the administration of justice.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 156">whether better to review registrar's decision to dismiss subpoena for production of documents or order general or particular discovery.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2009] FMCA 156">subpoena for production of documents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 201">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 201">interim application by the respondents to dismiss substantive applications for want of compliance with court's orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 201">substantive applications dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 201">costs awarded to the respondents.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 201" id="cs0">On 8 October 2009 the Federal Court dismissed Mr Ibrahim's application for leave to appeal in Ibrahim and Worken Pty Ltd . [3] Having found that the application ought to be dismissed the Federal Court observed as follows: 40. I consider I should add that it is important for the applicant, if he wished seriously to pursue the proceeding he has commenced in the Federal Magistrates Court, to ensure compliance with orders made by the Federal Magistrate from time to time that are designed to enable the parties to present their cases adequately at a final hearing. Interlocutory applications for leave to appeal of this kind are only apt to delay the whole process and add expense to the process, neither of which can be considered to the advantage of any of the parties. [4]  Consequently, this Court ordered as follows on 16 November 2009: 1. The matter be adjourned until after the High Court has dealt with Mr Ibrahim's intended application for special leave to appeal the judgment of Justice Barker of the Federal Court.
 AND THE COURT NOTES that the judgment of Justice Barker referred to above is Ibrahim v Worken Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1146.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">htw valuers (central qld) pty ltd v astonland pty ltd  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">breach of contract and negligent provision of advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">respondent relied on valuation advice from appellant in purchasing commercial premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">risk of decline in market value of premises from competing business not taken into account in advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether damages assessed at date of contract to purchase premises or only once risk eventuated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether damages based on "true value" or "market value" of premises at date of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether assessment of "true value" at date of contract includes subsequent events</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">purpose of damages under trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 82.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 189">courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">murphy v overton investments pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lease for unit in retirement village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lessee liable to pay proportionate part of all expenditure incurred in operating village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate of likely expenditure given to prospective lessees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate did not include all expenditure being incurred in operation of the village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">accepted that respondent engaged in conduct in contravention of pt v of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">relief available under pt vi of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether appellants suffered "loss or damage" within meaning of ss 82 and 87 of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" confined to economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether incurring unexpected expenditure can be loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" is necessarily singular</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether loss or damage constituted only by any diminution in value of the lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether increased future contributions could be awarded as damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 94">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 94">reliance upon misleading representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 94">whether misleading representation must be sole cause of loss and damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 94">method of assessment of damage</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 94" id="cs0">The trial judge described the capitalisation rate as the "rate of return from a business that a purchaser seeks to achieve from the capital outlaid on the purchase of a business": Hermitage Motel Pty Ltd v P.E. Kafka Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 442 at [15] . As the trial judge recorded (at [16]), the capitalisation rate of the purchase price in fact paid by the purchaser on the basis of represented figures was known --- it was 15%. Mr Roberts adopted the same capitalisation rate --- 15%.  Next, the trial judge accepted that the purchaser's loss was to be calculated by deducting the true value of the Inn from the purchase price paid ($2,050,000). It was common ground that the true value of the Inn was to be assessed by capitalisation of the annual net return of the Inn and that the formula to be applied ( Hermitage Motel Pty Ltd v P.E. Kafka Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 442 at [7] ) was:

 100 [rparenmid] capitalisation rate × net return = value

  Mr Drewitt Smith adopted a capitalisation rate of 12.75% on the basis that the most directly comparable sales supported a capitalisation rate of between 12.25% and 12.5% but then selected a higher rate to reflect the fact that the Inn was then underperforming and the time required by an alternative operator to improve occupancy and overall profitability: see Hermitage Motel Pty Ltd v P.E. Kafka Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 442 at [18] .  The trial judge selected a capitalisation rate of 12.5% on the basis that if the actual results had been known by an informed purchaser, that purchaser would have recognised the possibility of correcting the downturn by better management and would therefore have been prepared to accept a lower capitalisation rate. As the trial judge noted ( Hermitage Motel Pty Ltd v P.E. Kafka Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 442 at [20]), adopting a lower capitalisation rate would result in an informed purchaser being willing to pay more for the Inn.  Mr Drewitt Smith had the actual trading figures for the years ended 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2003. He was not provided with, and therefore did not rely upon, the actual trading figures for the period from 1 July 2004 until completion. His approach was to reconstruct the trading figures for the period from 1 July 2004 until completion by taking the actual trading figures for the years ended 30 June 2002 and 30 June 2003 and adjusting those results upwards by 8.5%. He arrived at an estimated annual net profit before tax of $261,841: see Hermitage Motel Pty Ltd v P.E. Kafka Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 442 at [9] . Mr Drewitt Smith sought to justify his approach on the basis that a fire had occurred in the restaurant of the Inn on 26 May 2003. As a result of the fire, Mr Drewitt Smith assumed, the restaurant had been closed until 28 October 2003 which had seriously affected patronage and revenue. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 483" id="cs1">1 On 4 April 2008 I delivered reasons for judgment ( Hermitage Motel Pty Ltd v P. E. Kafka Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 442) and stood the matter over in order to enable the first applicant to bring in minutes of order to give effect to those reasons. Some issues need to be determined.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39A Federal jurisdiction invested in State Courts by other provisions</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 417 Minister may substitute more favourable decision</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 16.05 Setting aside</title>
</legistitles>
</case>