Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1638">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1638">annulment of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1638">whether sequestration order should have been made considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1568">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1568">power of the court to grant a stay of proceedings under sequestration orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1568">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1568">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1568">orders made nunc pro tunc extending the time of lapsing of creditor's petitions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1568">application of slip rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1561">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1561">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1561">sequestration order made in absence of debtor.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1066">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1066">application to annul</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1066">order that " ought not to have been made "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1066">a " heavy burden "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1066">previous applications refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1066">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1066">previous proceedings in other courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 544">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 544">failure to prosecute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 544">progressive abandonment of claim dismissed at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 544">no remaining foundation for appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 544">abuse of process. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 544">no reasonable prospects of success.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 548">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 548">application for dismissal for want of prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 548">continued non-compliance with court's directions by the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 548">failure to prosecute appeal with due diligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 548">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 548">indemnity costs awarded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">ss 52(4) and (5) of bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">provision for lapsing of creditor's petition at expiration of period of 12 months commencing on date of presentation of petition or other period fixed by court order made within that period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">solicitor for petitioning creditor and federal magistrate overlooking fact that petition about to lapse when directions made for filing and serving of further affidavits and submissions by a date later than date when petition would lapse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">federal magistrate subsequently (after expiry of 12 months) made order under s 52(5) extending period with retrospective effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">whether federal magistrate had power to make that order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">effect of last day of 12 month period being a bank holiday</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 427">calculation of period of 12 months "commencing on" date of presentation of petition.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">claims of misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">whether appellant's connection with name 'mythbusters' sufficient to establish reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">name broadly descriptive, not distinctive to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">class of addressees is ordinary members of the television viewing public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">temporary or commercially irrelevant misapprehension of association due to use of name not misleading or deceptive conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">motion to set aside order by single judge striking out appeal where order already entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">order an exercise of appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">whether single judge has power to hear motion to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">whether jurisdiction to reopen entered order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">no rule concerning reopening of entered orders in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">s 23 federal court of australia act or court's inherent jurisdiction not to be used for that purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1326">even if court had jurisdiction to reopen the order it was not appropriate to do so on the facts of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">application to adduce additional evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">s 27 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">discretion to receive further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">cogency of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">conduct of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">finality of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">discretion to be exercised judicially and consistently with judicial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 136">application refused held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1191">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1191">creditor served bankruptcy notice on debtor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1191">creditor was assignee of a debt from firm of solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1191">no evidence that assignor had security over debtor's property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1191">no evidence that bankruptcy notice was issued solely for purpose of securing payment of debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1191">no evidence of a collateral purpose in a contrived arrangement to avoid assignor giving up security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">application for annulment of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">where sequestration order made against the estate of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">whether sequestration order "ought not have been made"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">whether at time sequestration order made applicant was indebted to the respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">discretion to make annulment order practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">application to reopen proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">whether availability of fresh evidence warrants reopening</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">nothing in discovered documents that supports application for annulment of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 307">application to reopen proceeding refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 179">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 179">annulment of sequestration order under s 153b of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 179">whether sequestration order "ought not to have been made"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 179">non-opposition and non-attendance by bankrupt at hearing of petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 179">discretion to make annulment order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 179">whether discretion miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 149">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 149">the slip rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 149">whether the slip rule authorizes the making of an order after the expiration of the statutory time limit for doing so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 149">whether the power for doing so is restricted to a superior court of record practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 149">whether 'reserving judgment' is an order in itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 149">whether 'reserving judgment' is an order of adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">application to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">whether cross claim, set off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">whether any claims have reasonable prospects of success bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">power to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">discretion to set aside for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">whether bankruptcy notice constitutes abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">collateral purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">undue pressure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">inference of collateral purpose bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 825">ss 30 41 (7) and 40 (1)(g) maxwell-smith v s  e hall, in the matter of maxwell-smith [2004] fca 840 referred to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 470">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 470">counter claim against petitioning creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 470">other claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 470">whether sequestration order should have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 470">whether bankruptcy proceeding was an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 470">held that the exercise of power under s 52 of the bankruptcy act miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 401">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 401">application for extension of time for leave to appeal from judgment of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 401">whether special reason exists for extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 401">merits of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 38">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 38">unnecessary appeal papers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 38">obligation to cooperate in the preparation of appeal index so as to avoid unnecessary costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1936">hacker v the owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1936">strata plan no. 17572 [2005] fca 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1271">2. appeal is to be heard, as stated in order 2 of orders of sackville j dated 28 july 2004, for one day in the period of 1 november 2004</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1271">21 november 2004;</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">application for annulment of sequestration orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">bankrupt's non-attendance at hearing when sequestration order was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">facts not known to person making the sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">sequestration order ought not to have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">applicants may have been solvent at the time sequestration order was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 840">sequestration order annulled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 315">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 315">appeal against refusal of application to annul sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 315">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">allesch v maunz  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">nature of an appeal to the full court of the family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">discretion to set aside an order made in the absence of a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">miscarriage of justice where a party suffers effect of an adverse order and that party's absence adequately explained.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeals by way of rehearing from discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appellate court seeking to re-exercise discretion by reference to circumstances as they presently exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">parties must be given an opportunity to adduce evidence as to circumstances as they presently exist in such cases.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 40">discretion to set aside order made in absence of a party.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.0">cited from="[1997] FCA 226">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] noel ling v enrobook pty ltd [1997] fca 226 (9 april 1997)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">application for extension of time for compliance with requirements of bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">applicant having filed with registrar an application to set aside notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">act expressly conferring power to extend time; but not to set aside the notice itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">ubi aliquid conceditur, conceditur etiam et id sine quo res ipsa non esse potest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">inherent jurisdiction to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">relation between paras. 41 (6a) (a) and (b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">exercise of discretion to grant extension of time.  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth.) ss. 30 , 33 , 41 (6a), (6b) and (6c)  bankruptcy amendment act 1980 (cth.)  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">application for extension of time for compliance with requirement of bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">applicant having filed with registrar an application to set aside notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">act expressly conferring power to extend time but not to set aside notice itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">inherent jurisdiction to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">relation between pars. (a) and (b) of bankruptcy act s. 41 (6a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">exercise of discretion to grant extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 30 , 33 , 41 (6a), (6b), (6c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">bankruptcy amendment act 1980 (cth), ss. 20 , 24 . section 41 (6a) of the bankruptcy act , as amended, provides that: "where, before the expiration of the time fixed by the court or the registrar for compliance with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 61">(a) proceedings to set aside the judgment or order in respect of which the bankruptcy notice was issued have been instituted by the debtor; or  (b) an application to set aside the bankruptcy notice has been filed with the registrar; the court may, subject to sub-section (6c), extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice."</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">stay of sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">motion for lift of stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">motion for dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">federal court of australia rules, o.52, rr. 17, 26, 27, 38.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.9">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">motion for dismissal of appeal for want of prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.10">cited from="[1979] FCA 108">federal court of australia rules, o.52, rr. 17, 26, 27, 38. in september 1979 the court of insolvency of south australia exercising federal jurisdiction in bankruptcy made a sequestration order against the estate of the appellant. some days later the appellant filed a notice of appeal in the federal court of australia against the sequestration order together with a notice of motion for a stay of proceedings. when the motion for a stay came on for hearing shortly thereafter fisher j. made, inter alia, the following order: "that proceedings under the sequestration order be stayed until the determination of the appeal or further order. "in november 1979 the respondent filed a notice of motion to lift the stay of proceedings granted by fisher j. and to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 604">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 604">whether appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution and failure to comply with court orders under s 25(2b) of the federal court act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 604">whether a failure to prosecute appeal with due diligence as required by o 52 r 38 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 604">frequent and persistent failure to comply with orders of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 604">failure to file an appeal book in the form required by o 52 r 26 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 604">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">creditor under costs order against deceased estate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">pt.iv bankruptcy proceedings against executor personally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">sequestration order made by registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">delay in applying for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">sequestration order ought not have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">order set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 899">no orders as to costs including trustee costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">act of bankruptcy within six months of petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">interpretation of order extending bankruptcy notice until 'first return date' of notice of appeal from refusal to set aside notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">whether expired at appeal index conference or later call-over</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">claims against bank for selling security at an undervalue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">assessment of merits and prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">no sufficient cause for dismissing or adjourning petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">sequestration order made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 28">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 28">alleged dismissal for a prohibited reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 28">spurious grounds of appeal costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 28">orders for the payment of legal and professional costs and disbursements in connection with the appeals in accordance with s 824 of the workplace relations act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1202">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1202">counter-claim, set-off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1202">circumstances in which a bankruptcy notice may be set aside for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 798">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 798">basis of payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 798">conduct of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 798">indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">application for annulment of sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">liability of director for insolvent trading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">no grounds for going behind default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">claimed indebtedness of company not wholly disproved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">no evidence that sequestration order ought not have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">delay in seeking annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">discretionary reason for refusing annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">challenge to actions of separate trustee for sale of home appointed by supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">not within court's jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 612">application refused.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 604" id="cs0">Returning to the reasons for judgment of Logan and Flick JJ, after setting out the procedural steps required by the rules in order to facilitate the hearing and resolution of any appeal, their Honours said, at [63]:

 The present matter of concern focuses upon those procedural steps which are aimed at ensuring a Full Court has before it, in a timely and organised manner, all documents necessary for the resolution of the appeal listed for hearing before it. Non-compliance with these rules in particular may not necessarily lead to an appeal being struck out or dismissed: e.g. Jandruwanda v University of South Australia (2003) FCA 1456. But a failure to comply with the provisions which ensure that an appeal can proceed may constitute a failure to prosecute an appeal justifying an order that the appeal be dismissed: e.g. Goldie v The Commonwealth (2004) FCA 973. Whether an order is made that an appeal should be struck out for any such non-compliance with the Rules must necessarily depend upon the facts and circumstances of each individual case, and upon a consideration of those interests relevant to the proper administration of justice.

At paragraph [93] their Honours also relevantly said:

 The failure of an Appellant to attend to the preparation of an Appeal Book cannot deprive a Respondent of the opportunity to have an appeal heard and resolved as quickly and expeditiously as possible in a manner consistent with the interests of justice: Davidova v Murphy (2009) FCA 601 at [24] . Nor can such a failure deprive a Respondent of the benefits of the success he has achieved before a primary judge.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 899" id="cs1">Mrs Cuskelly's first application clearly invoked the Court's powers under s.104(3) , which allow it to "review an exercise of power by a Registrar ... and may make any order or orders it thinks fit in relation to the matter in respect of which the power was exercised" . On review of a sequestration order made by a Registrar, the Court considers the making of the order de novo in the light of the evidence and circumstances at the time of its review. If the Court decides that a sequestration order should not have been made, then it has an option either to set aside the Registrar's order under s.104(3) , or, alternatively, to exercise the power of annulment under s.153B of the Bankruptcy Act (see Pattison v Hadjimouratis (2006) 155 FCR 226). The annulment power is available "if the Court is satisfied that a sequestration order ought not to have been made" , based on new evidence reflecting on the situation at the date of the sequestration order (see Miller v Bondi Securities [1994] FCA 1304 at [19] - [20], Rigg v Baker [2006] FCAFC 179 ; (2006) 155 FCR 531 at [59] and following paragraphs, and Davidova v Murphy [2009] FCA 601). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 623" id="cs2">The affidavit verifying the pleading is signed by an accountant who deposes to being a director of the first plaintiff, that is, BMG. Putting aside the implications of BMG going into liquidation, there is doubt whether such an affidavit can substantially assist the establishment of the ground referred to in s.52(2)(b) , in the absence of any additional evidence allowing the bankruptcy court itself to assess the factual and legal foundations for projecting a success in the matter (see Davidova v Murphy [2009] FCA 601 at 74). In the present case, I do not consider that it does. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 28" id="cs3">93 The failure of an Appellant to attend to the preparation of an Appeal Book cannot deprive a Respondent of the opportunity to have an appeal heard and resolved as quickly and as expeditiously as possible in a manner consistent with the interests of justice: Davidova v Murphy [2009] FCA 601 at [24] . Nor can such a failure deprive a Respondent of the benefits of the success he has achieved before a primary Judge. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1202" id="cs4">This Court also has an implied jurisdiction to set aside a bankruptcy notice as an abuse of process: Re Sterling; Ex parte Esanda Ltd [1980] FCA 61 ; (1980) 44 FLR 125. An abuse of process may be made out if the purpose in issuing the bankruptcy notice is to put pressure on a debtor to pay the debt rather than to invoke the Court's jurisdiction in relation to insolvency: Brunninghausen v Glavanics [1998] FCA 230 ; Killoran v Duncan [1999] FCA 1574 at [12] per Gyles J. See also: Maxwell-Smith v S  E Hall Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 825 , 233 ALR 81 ; Cavoli v Etl [2007] FCA 1191 at [17] , 5 ABC(NS) 363 at 369 per Heerey J; Slack v Bottoms English Solicitors [2002] FCA 1445 at [15] to [18] per Spender J; Davidova v Murphy [2009] FCA 601 at [88] . It is also an abuse of process for a judgment creditor to pursue bankruptcy proceedings " for the purpose of stifling litigation ": Bayne v Baillieu; Bayne v Riggall [1908] HCA 39 ; (1908) 6 CLR 382 at 396 per Griffith CJ. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 798" id="cs5">Reference was made to Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536 ; (1993) 46 FCR 225 , Davidova v Murphy [2009] FCA 601 at [23] and Khera v Jones [2008] FCA 548 at [24] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 612" id="cs6">" Other factors which his Honour took into account in the exercise of his discretion in refusing to annul the bankruptcy were that the bankrupt had delayed for a period of over two years before making the application for annulment and had not placed any evidence before the court to show that he was solvent. Further his Honour stated at 25 "In all the circumstances of the case, even if it were right to say, contrary to the view that I have formed, that the sequestration order ought not to have been made, I would in the exercise of my discretion refuse this application for annulment".
More recent cases have referred to the same authorities, and have isolated the same principles (see, for example, French J in Rigg v Baker [2006] FCAFC 179 ; (2006) 155 FCR 531 at [59] and following paragraphs, and Flick J in Davidova v Murphy [2009] FCA 601). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 52 Proceedings and order on creditor's petition</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 153B Annulment by Court</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 154 Effect of annulment</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 27 Evidence on appeal</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 38 Practice and procedure</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 1.05 Application</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">unjustified threats</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">ss 128 and 129 of the patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">assuming the threat was made and that the defence under s 129(b) is not established, whether the court has a discretion to decline to grant relief sought by an applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">meaning of the word "may" in the context of s 129</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">whether certain matters are relevant to the exercise of the discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">whether breach of contract and confidence, or infringement of copyright or contravention of certain provisions of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) by the applicant in relation to the conduct to which the threats related is relevant to the exercise of the discretion to decline to grant relief under s 129</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">whether the applicant's having "dirty hands" is relevant to the exercise of the discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">whether the discretion is like the discretion to decline to grant relief in the auxiliary jurisdiction of a court of equity intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">unjustified threats</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">ss 128 and 129 of the patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">the defence available under ss 57 and 129 (b) in an unjustified threats proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">whether, for the defence to be available, the conduct, which was the subject of the threats, must infringe the claims of the complete specification as published at the time of the threats and as published at the time at which the conduct will occur if that conduct has not yet occurred at the time the threat was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">whether the defence is only available after the grant of the patent which is the subject of the application referred to in s 57  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 1257">application to strike out certain allegations in a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">motions for dismissal of proceedings pursuant to federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">alternatively for statement of claim to be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">federal court rules order 11 rule 16 or order 20 rule 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">construction of option in contract to lease and subsequent deed of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">consideration of evidence of extrinsic material in aid of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">common intention unilateral mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">equitable estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">breach of warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 51aa and 51ac of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 6(3) and 52 trade practices act and s 10 fair trading act 1987 (wa).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">motion for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">alleged estoppels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">abuse of process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 555">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 555">application for an order revoking an earlier order to which consent had been given in error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 555">order revoked in absence of prejudice apart from cost</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">construction and interpretation of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">use of pre-contractual and post-contractual conduct in aid to construing terms of the contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">whether information was confidential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">whether unconscientious use of information occurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2007] WASC 232">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">non-party discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">whether reasonable cause to believe of right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">whether all reasonable inquiries made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">context involving alleged infringements of copyright and trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">letter of request to non-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">discovery from respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 578">affidavit from non-party raising prospect not liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 545">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 545">consideration of an application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment dismissing an application pursuant to o 15a, r 6 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 545">consideration of the principles to be applied in an application under o 15a, r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 545">consideration of whether a basis demonstrated for enjoining a third party acting bona fide without notice that particular conduct might involve a use of the applicant's confidential information intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 545">consideration of the extent to which the conduct of a third party acting bona fide without notice and for value might be restrained in the exercise of the court's jurisdiction to enforce an obligation of confidence said to devolve upon such a third party in the acquisition and resupply of retractable syringes said to embody the applicant's confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">strikeout application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether s 31a federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) applies to proceedings commenced before operation of section</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">breach of contract claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether subsequent grievance procedure formed part of contract of employment and applied to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether statements made at time of termination made in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether unconscionable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether, if federal claims struck out, jurisdiction for defamation claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">claim for alleged misuse of confidential information by former employee and his new employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">leave granted to file a substituted statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">applications to strike out the new pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">whether substituted statement of claim complies with requirements laid down in earlier judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">whether plaintiffs have identified with sufficient particularity the alleged confidential information sought to be protected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">whether pleading embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">whether permissible to identify confidential information in general terms pending application for further discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">ocular sciences ltd  anor v aspect vision care ltd  ors [1997] rpc 289 referred to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">computershare ltd v perpetual registrars ltd [2000] vsc 139 ; [2000] 1 vr 626 distinguished</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2005] VSC 26">creative brands pty ltd v franklin [2001] vsc 338 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 3">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 3">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 3">application by successful defendant for indemnity costs order against plaintiff and plaintiff's solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 3">legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 3">statutory duty in pursuing claim for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 3">statutory liability for costs and analogous general law liability discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">extent of obligation of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">whether based on confider's purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">regard to be had for surrounding circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">"reasonable man" test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">no breach of obligation unless unconscientious use made of information.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">s.51(xxxi)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">whether confidential information is property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 150">whether use of information amounted to acquisition.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1987] FCA 266">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1987] FCA 266">whether documents sought under the freedom of information act 1982 , to obtain evidence of an alleged infringement of patent, were exempt documents within the meaning of s.45(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">proprietorship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">prior use by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">public use indicating connexion in course of trade between goods and user</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">overseas company seeking to interest local manufacturer in new cigarette brand supplies cigarette packets and advertising material bearing name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">trade marks act 1955 (cth), s. 40(1).  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensing agreement relating to manufacture and sale of brand of cigarettes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensor subsequently developing new variety of brand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether implied term that licensee would not hinder development of line extension of brand.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">fiduciary relationships</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensing agreement relating to manufacture and sale of brand of cigarettes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensor develops new brand and seeks to interest licensee in manufacture and sale of it in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">supply of samples and advertising material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether fiduciary relationship between parties in relation to trade name of new brand.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">unfair competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">unfair trading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether general cause of action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">plea of authorship and ownership of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">general traverse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">defendant's case that copyright vested in partnership of which author a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no plea of assignment or transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">point not made issue by conduct at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">whether maintainable on appeal.  partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">acquisition from individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership act 1958 (vict.), s. 24(1).*   * section 24 of the partnership act 1958 (vict.) provides: "all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the partnership stock or acquired whether by purchase or otherwise on account of the firm or for the purposes and in the course of the partnership business are called in this act partnership property and must be held and applied by the partners exclusively for the purposes of the partnership and in accordance with the partnership agreement."  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">devolution by operation of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no express assignment of copyright by individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 35 , 196 (1).+  + section 196(1) of the copyright act 1968 (cth) provides: "copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."  breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">tax minimization scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.23">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.24">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">know-how</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.25">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">scope of protection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">injury by accident arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">death of worker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">negligence of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">option of dependants to apply for compensation or take other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">award of compensation obtained by widow on behalf of herself and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">effect of award as barring claim by dependants under lord campbell's act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation acts 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">1946 (no. 3806</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">no. 5128) (vict.)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">wrongs act 1928 (no. 3807) (vict.), part iii.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">the 1946 workers' compensation rules, rr. 8, 81.*  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">supreme court (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">dismissal of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">rules of the supreme court (vict.), order xxv., rr. 2, 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 216">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 216">o 16 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 216">leave to administer interrogatories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 216">interrogatories sufficiently confined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 216">whether interrogatories are premature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 216">whether interrogatories are fishing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 216">whether the certification to the pleadings under o 11 r 1b(1) of the federal court rules is relevant to prematurity or fishing arguments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">appeal and cross-appeal in the federal court from final determination of the commissioner's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">issues to be determined on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">whether arguments raised in appeal of original decision can be agitated on appeal from final determination where no appeal from amendment decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">subject matter of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">additional evidence of prior art</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">characterisation of appeals from the commissioner in the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">hearing de novo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 662">whether appeals should be consolidated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">principles applicable to exercise of discretion to award security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">quantum of security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">application for gross sum of costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">assessment of gross sum pursuant to o 62 r 4(2)(c) of the federal court rules (fcr)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">application of discount</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">relationship between assessment of a gross sum and principles of taxation of costs  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">strike out application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">application for costs to be paid forthwith pursuant to o 62 r 3 fcr</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">factors relevant to exercise of discretion as to whether costs should be paid forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">failure to rectify deficiencies in pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 32">relevance of award of security for costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 216" id="cs0">A more comprehensive discussion of the factual aspects underlying the contentions appears in Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd v The ANI Corporation Limited trading as ANI Bradken Rail Transportation Group (No 2) [2009] FCA 363 (at [12]-[15]) where, relevantly to this motion, I noted: The applicant (Lynx) designs, manufactures and supplies railway wagons for carrying freight and bulk materials. In or around 1996, Lynx together with the first respondent (ANI) responded to an invitation to tender from BHP Iron Ore Ltd (BHP) for the design, manufacture and supply of gondola ore cars. The tender was unsuccessful.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 662" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 32" id="cs2">These reasons deal with questions of costs. The first relates to security for costs and the second, payment of costs following an earlier application and judgment ( Lynx Engineering Consultants Pty Ltd v The ANI Corporation Limited trading as ANI Bradken Rail Transportation Group (No 2) [2009] FCA 363). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 10 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 35 Ownership of copyright in original works</title>
<title id="l3">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 36 Infringement by doing acts comprised in the copyright</title>
<title id="l4">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 52 Publication of unpublished works kept in libraries or archives</title>
<title id="l5">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 53 Application of Division to illustrations accompanying articles and other works</title>
<title id="l6">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 77 Application of artistic works as industrial designs without registration of the designs</title>
<title id="l7">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 77A Certain reproductions of an artistic work do not infringe copyright</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l10">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l11">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 128 Application for relief from unjustified threats</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of provision of information to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal asked wrong question or applied wrong test in considering claim of fear of persecution on religious grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness having regard to the manner of examination of independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">lapse of time between entry into australia and bringing of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">consideration of s 91r(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">where appellant converted to christianity while in australia practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">leave to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether respondents prejudiced by granting of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether exceptional circumstances required to be shown by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether allowance to be granted by the court to permit recently published judgments to be understood and applied by legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">grounds not raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">rejection of application for review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">indian christian evangelist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">claim for refugee status based on fear of lack of effective protection against hindu extremists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">argued before fmc (i) no evidence to support finding of fact as to action by indian police in response to attacks against members of religious minorities (ii) tribunal did not ask "what if i am wrong?"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">leave sought to raise further arguments (iii) failure to comply with s 424a migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of information concerning appellant's failings to return to site of home allegedly burned down by extremists and (iv) failure to deal with essential integers of appellant's claim held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">alleged breach of s 424a of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">whether information was within exemption of s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">the relevant information was given to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">refugee review tribunal ("the rrt") failed to give appellant particulars in writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether information provided by applicant on protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether converted to information given by applicant for purpose of application for review by rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether exception in s424a(3)(b) of migration act 1958 (cth) enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether breach of s424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates decision of rrt practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">joinder of rrt migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">s424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 842">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 842">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 842">bangladeshi member of awami league</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 842">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 842">no error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">applicant claiming persecution in nepal on several bases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">applicants' claims rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">numerous jurisdictional errors alleged, including apprehended bias and breaches of ss.424 and 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1168">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1168" id="cs0">41. There not having been a request under s.424 , the obligation envisaged by the second sentence of s.424(1) did not arise. See, for example, SZGPO v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 648 at [31] per Gilmour J. Again, no jurisdictional error is demonstrated.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426 Applicant may request Refugee Review Tribunal to call witnesses</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">application for review from decision of director-general of social services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">appeal to federal court of australia from "decision" of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">competence of appeal from preliminary ruling of tribunal that it has jurisdiction to review decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">competence of appeal from an interim order of tribunal staying operation of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">what constitutes a "decision" of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 87">power to make interim order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 107">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 107">appeal from the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 107">appeal is permitted from a "decision" of the administrative appeals tribunal under s 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 107">"decision" does not have its ordinary meaning but means a decision determinative of the final outcome</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 107">decision appealed from not determinative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 107">primary judge was correct to dismiss application as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 107">leave to appeal from the interlocutory decision of primary judge refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">previous aat finding of failure to provide information to centrelink</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">decision under review by these proceedings was the raising of an overpayment of newstart allowance by failure to declare a distribution of income from a family trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">application dismissed as frivolous and vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 31">direction that applicant not make a subsequent application without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">application for an extension of time to appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal affirming minister's decision to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">privative clause decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">no appeal from tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">limited to judicial review migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">cancellation of visa by minister on character grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">whether failure to give adequate weight to relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 251">new evidence</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1310" id="cs0">The Applicant had been given ample opportunity to prepare his case based upon the matter properly before the Court, namely the appeal under the AAT Act. The Applicant is aware of the procedures in this Court and the processes undertaken in both the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court of Australia --- see for example Pham v Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 2049.  This was the matter of some discussion during the second day of hearing. I would have decided in any event to refuse the request to issue the summonses (which would have been issued by the District or Deputy Registrar) pursuant to s 40(1C) of the AAT Act. As the applicant was advised in the decision of His Honour, Mr Justice Gray, [2007] FCA 2049 at paragraph 11, the role of the Tribunal is to make its decision on the basis of the material before it. Its role is not to examine the basis for decision made by a previous decision-maker. I could not be satisfied that the Secretary of the respondent department nor the Members who constituted the SSAT could have provided any assistance to these proceedings, indeed it would have been improper for the Members of the SSAT to give evidence.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 107" id="cs1">In relation to the crucial question on this application for leave to appeal, Mansfield J said, at [23]:
The decision in Chaney has been applied in a number of cases in which the Court's jurisdiction under s 44 of the AAT Act has been invoked following the refusal to summarily dismiss a review application to the AAT under s 42B: Australian Postal Corporation v Matusko (Unreported, 14 May 1996, Olney J); Board of Examiners under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA) v Lawrence [2000] FCA 900 ; (2000) 100 FCR 255 ; Duncan v Fayle (2004) 138 FCR 510. It has also been held that a decision under s 33 not to exercise the discretion under s 33 of the AAT Act to dismiss or confine a review application to issues of law is also not a decision to which s 44 applies: see Lawrance v President, Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2005] FCA 541 ; and Pham v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 2049 ; (2007) 99 ALD 694. I am bound to follow those decisions of the Full Court, and with respect I agree with the reasoning of the learned judges in both the Full Court decisions and in the single judge decisions.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 153" id="cs2">The decision in Chaney has been applied in a number of cases in which the Court's jurisdiction under s 44 of the AAT Act has been invoked following the refusal to summarily dismiss a review application to the AAT under s 42B: Australian Postal Corporation v Matusko (Unreported, 14 May 1996, Olney J); Board of Examiners under the Mines Safety and Inspection Act 1994 (WA) v Lawrence [2000] FCA 900 ; (2000) 100 FCR 255 ; Duncan v Fayle [2004] FCA 723 ; (2004) 138 FCR 510. It has also been held that a decision under s 33 not to exercise the discretion under s 33 of the AAT Act to dismiss or confine a review application to issues of law is also not a decision to which s 44 applies: see Lawrance v President, Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2005] FCA 541 ; and Pham v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 2049 ; (2007) 99 ALD 694. I am bound to follow those decisions of the Full Court, and with respect I agree with the reasoning of the learned judges in both the Full Court decisions and in the single judge decisions. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 31" id="cs3">This was the matter of some discussion during the second day of hearing. I would have decided in any event to refuse the request to issue the summonses (which would have been issued by the District or Deputy Registrar) pursuant to s 40(1C) of the AAT Act. As the applicant was advised in the decision of His Honour, Mr Justice Gray, [2007] FCA 2049 at paragraph 11, the role of the Tribunal is to make its decision on the basis of the material before it. Its role is not to examine the basis for decision made by a previous decision-maker. I could not be satisfied that the Secretary of the respondent department nor the Members who constituted the SSAT could have provided any assistance to these proceedings, indeed it would have been improper for the Members of the SSAT to give evidence. The allegations made by the applicant are: Bias and judiciary bias --- refer appeal notice at T28, p130; decision of a named Federal Court Judge in an appeal lodged by the applicant citing the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission as the respondent (V307/2002); Notice of Appeal against decision of named Tribunal Member in proceedings V2006/838; Racial discrimination --- alleged against a named Federal Court Judge (refer T28, p130) and Appeal Notice in proceedings [2007] FCA 947 ; Allegations of attempt to pervert the course of justice and conspiracy --- allegations made against a named Centrelink advocate, the solicitor representing Centrelink, the Victorian Registrar of the AAT and me in Statement of Facts and Contentions at paragraphs 4.2 and 4.10, at paragraph 6 of Exhibit D and in letters to the District Registrar of 3 September 2008 and 26 September 2008; Allegation made against the named Centrelink advocate in the Transcript at page 54 and in the Appeal Notice VID 1017/2007; Similar allegations made against SSAT Members at paragraphs 34 --- 37 inclusive of the Statement of Facts and Contentions (Exhibit B); Allegations of fabrication of documents --- these allegations have been directed toward me (refer [2007] FCA 2049 and Statement of Facts and Contentions at paragraph 4.2); against a named advocate of Centrelink in proceedings [2007] FCA 2049 ; allegation that the named Centrelink advocate fabricated a copy of the tax return of the PFT; Allegation of fabrication by a Tribunal Member in a Notice of Appeal (refer additional document 7); by Members of the SSAT at paragraph 26 of Exhibit B and paragraph 15 of Exhibit D; a named Tribunal Member and named officers of Centrelink at paragraphs 5 and 10 of a letter to the District Registrar of 12 December 2006 in application V2006/0838. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 251" id="cs4">44 First, it is possible that the relevant material could have assisted the applicant in his case before the Tribunal. However, as Gray J observed succinctly in Pham v Secretary Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 2049 at [11] , the Tribunal is empowered to make its own decision on whatever material is before it at the time when it makes that decision.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 33 Procedure of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 40 Powers of Tribunal etc.</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">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l7">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>