Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">application for business skills migrant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">failure to satisfy regulation 131.214</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">opportunity to respond to critical issue on which decision likely to turn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">right to comment upon adverse material from third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether critical issue obvious to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether issue apparent from nature or terms of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether applicant knew regulation 131.214 in issue migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether common law procedural fairness excluded by s 51a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">proper construction of ss 51a , 357a and 422b  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">finding by delegate that criterion in regulation 131.214 was not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether evidence required in order to make finding that not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">effect of s 65 of migration act 1958 (cth). migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">ss 51a , 57 , 65 , 357a , 422b  migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">reg 131</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">whether finding of jurisdictional fact based on probative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">whether div 4 of pt 7 of migration act exhausts common law natural justice hearing rules, or only some of them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">applicant naff of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">non-compliance with statutory duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal concerned by inconsistencies in applicant's evidence at oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal said it would give the applicant a chance to respond in writing to its concerns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether tribunal's failure to do so involved a failure to complete the review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to conduct a review under s 414(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to hear from the applicant under s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether reviewable error where absence of evidence from the applicant about effect of failure.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss 56 , 414 (1), 415 (1), 425 (1), 427 (1)(b), 420 , pt 7 divs 2-7a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">appeal against finding that union was liable as an accessory under s 76(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth) to company's contraventions of ss 45e and 45ea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether primary judge erred in finding contract, arrangement or understanding between company and union contravened s 45e</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether primary judge erred in drawing certain inferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether primary judge erred in finding alternative case of australian competition and consumer commission made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether primary judge erred in finding union had knowledge of all elements required by s 45e(3) trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">proper construction of s 45e(3) of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether 'purpose' for the inclusion of a provision is objective or subjective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether 'purpose' to be common intention of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether 'purpose' must be the only purpose or an operative purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether union can be liable as an accessory to a corporation's contravention of s 45e(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether 'second person' must be a particular identified person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether sufficient to identify a class of persons trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">appeal against pecuniary penalty imposed on union for accessorial liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">whether pecuniary penalty excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 132">standard of proof for pecuniary penalties under s 76</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">prohibition of arrangements affecting the acquisition of goods or services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">where first respondent entered into and gave effect to an arrangement with second respondent that it would not engage the services of electrical subcontractors which did not have certified industrial agreements with the second respondent  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">penalties under s 76 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">effect of joint submissions from parties proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">relevant factors in determining level of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">application of parity principle where penalty already imposed on co-offender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 144">jointly proposed penalty deemed appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">contravention of s 10 of the petroleum retail marketing sites act 1980 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">parties present joint submissions on the appropriate pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">direction under federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) asking whether the court must consider whether the proposed amount is within the permissible range and, if so, impose the "agreed" penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">powers and responsibilities of court faced with joint submission on penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] n w frozen foods proprietary ltd v australian competition  consumer commission [1996] fca 1134 (20 december 1996)    trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalties under s.76 for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of agreement between a.c.c.c. and corporation on joint submissions proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">desirability of settlement of such cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalty cases not criminal prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of undertaking by corporation of a compliance programme agreed with the commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">difficulties in comparing penalties in other cases with that proposed for the instant case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">importance of the particular market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of identity of corporation to be penalised where it was a member of a group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of whether a corporation has previously contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">inappropriateness of diminishing the credit to be given a corporation for co-operation and admission of liability by reference to any costs saving it may achieve thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">reference to u.s. law conceding the u.s. federal trade commission "a special competence in formulating remedies"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">discussion of the question for the court where penalty is the subject of an agreed joint submission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 369">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 369">admitted contraventions of ss 51ad, 52 , 53 (g) and 59 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 369">proposed declarations and orders by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 369">whether injunctions pursuant to s 75b and s 80 limited to a five year period should be granted against the individual who controlled the corporate contraveners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 369">relevant principles discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 369">relief sought by consent granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">contravention of pt iv of trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 45(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">arriving at and giving effect to understanding having purpose or likely effect of substantially lessening competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">understanding between respondent (qantas) and other international airlines as to surcharge to be imposed on international carriage of freight in consequence of increases in price of fuel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">fuel surcharge understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">agreed statement of facts and joint submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">penalty of $20 million and injunction for three years sought by both parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">consideration of relevant factors and of role of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1976">appropriateness of injunction of limited duration.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 369" id="cs0">There is now a body of authority in this Court in which final injunctions limited as to time have been granted (see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Wizard Mortgage Corporation Ltd [2002] FCA 1317 ; [2002] ATPR 41-903 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Signature Security Group Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 375 ; [2003] ATPR 41-942 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v George Weston Foods Ltd [2004] FCA 1093 ; (2004) 210 ALR 486 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Liquorland (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 683 ; [2005] ATPR 42-070 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IPM Operation and Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1777 ; (2006) 157 FCR 162 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1546 ; [2007] ATPR 42-192 ; and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCA 1976 ; (2008) 253 ALR 89). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1976" id="cs1">Finally, in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 1546 ; (2007) ATPR 42-192 , his Honour had to consider a proposed four year time limit. Of this limit, his Honour said (at [8]):
It provides a limit to the remedy of contempt of Court for breach. More particularly, it sets a period during which the party restrained will have a very powerful incentive to ensure that there is no further contravening conduct. By the end of that period it is to be hoped that the procedures and, perhaps, the culture of the organisation will be such that further contravention is unlikely. It seems to me that the undertakings which have been obtained in relation to compliance programs are appropriate for that purpose.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 191 Agreements as to facts</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1403">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1403">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1403">applicant failed to attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1403">fraud by agent not established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1403">ten year delay in seeking judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1403">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1403">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">szfde v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed a decision refusing the appellants' application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the appellants did not attend the tribunal hearing as a result of fraudulent advice given by a purported registered migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether there was fraud "by" or "on" the tribunal.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">inquisitorial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">distinction between tribunal process and inter partes litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether fraud practised by an agent upon the applicants for a protection visa subverted the operation of div 4 of pt 7 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether this fraud led to the jurisdiction of the tribunal remaining constructively unexercised.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">availability of constitutional writs in cases of fraud.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>