Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">review of decision of delegate of registrar to allow registration of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">evidentiary onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">trade mark application assigned to respondent before registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">original trade mark applicant and the respondent related companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether original trade mark applicant owner at filing date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether ownership established through use or otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether use of trade mark "as a trade mark"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">relationship between s 58 and s 27(1)(b)(ii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether explicit or implied authorisation to use trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether defect in trade mark application fatal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether intention to use within meaning of s 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether deceptive similarity pursuant to s 44(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">"closely related services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">reputation in context of s 60</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether applicant's trade marks had a reputation in australia prior to priority date of relevant trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">likelihood to deceive or cause confusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">s 42</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">interaction with s 52 trade practices act 1974 and passing off   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">admission of exhibits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">credibility of evidence as to use of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">whether refusal to allow exhibits and affidavit should be revisited   held: registration of trade mark refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">respondent to pay applicant's costs of delegate's decision and appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">applicant made prima facie case under s 58 and s 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">evidentiary onus shifted to respondent under s 58 and s 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">trade mark applicant at filing date must be owner of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">evidence of ownership of trade mark at time of application too confused to make finding as to ownership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">same sole director of trade mark applicant and respondent relevant but not conclusive on facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">failure to establish trade mark applicant was owner of trade mark at filing date fatal to trade mark application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">assignment of trade mark application to respondent does not cure defect in trade mark application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">respondent's evidence of use of trade mark lacked credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">intention of trade mark applicant to use trade mark not established under s 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.34">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">amendment of trade mark did not substantially affect the identity of the trade mark for purposes of s 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.35">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">use of "food network" and "food channel" deceptively similar on facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.36">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">s 52 trade practices act 1974 (cth) and passing off not substantially claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.37">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">use of trade mark not contrary to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.38">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">no prior reputation of applicant's trade marks established within meaning of s 60</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.39">cited from="[2009] FCA 271">earlier decisions of court concerning evidence not revisited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether primary judge correct to dismiss application on grounds that proceedings had no reasonable prospects of success and disclosed no cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">circumstances where self-represented litigant failed to comply with court directions in relation to filing of affidavit outlining essential factual elements of claim, but had outlined his claim orally to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether applicant had articulated any arguable claim for relief or cause of action  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether order made by primary judge, under s 31a(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), that whole claim against one of a number of parties had no reasonable prospects of success, interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">circumstances where order made by primary judge did not dispose of whole of proceedings practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">discretionary power of court to receive further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether different result would have occurred if evidence was available at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether in interests of justice to accept further evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether further evidence establishes reasonable prospect of succeeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 378">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 378">admissibility of affidavits sought to be filed by respondent during trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 378">discretion to exclude evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 378">whether probative value of late evidence outweighs prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">whether extension of time for patent valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">whether commissioner misconstrued s 70 of the patents act in extending the term of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">registration and listing of goods under the therapeutic goods act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">whether the first regulatory approval date is the date on which substance was entered into the part of the therapeutic register relating to registered goods or the date on which the substance was entered into the therapeutic register relating to listed goods  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">leave to appeal required for an appeal under s 158 of the patents act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 190">whether clear prima facie error required in the reasons of the primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">application for leave to appeal to full court from judgment of a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">opposition proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">where single judge ordered applications proceed to registration and marks subsequently registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">where no application for stay of single judge's orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">whether obligation to register marks after judgment on appeal from registrar's decision under s 68(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">whether full court has power to rectify register through cancellation or removal of marks pursuant to trade marks act , federal court of australia act or to preserve subject matter of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">exercise of discretion trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">colour mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">test under s 41(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">whether determine full scope of mark when applying s 41(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">test for leave to appeal in an opposition to registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">failure to consider matters raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">leave to appeal granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">jackamarra v krakouer  anor  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">extension of time to enter an appeal for hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">appeal lodged within time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">procedural default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">assessment of merits in exercise of discretion to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">whether appeal is "arguable" or "fairly arguable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">determination of "real prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">availability of evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">submission that evidence of witness should not be accepted stopped by judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">evidence accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 54">whether new trial should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 1">new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 1">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 1">material to issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 1">wrongful rejection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 1">principles governing grant of new trial at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 1">consideration of position under judicature system.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1952] HCA 15">trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1952] HCA 15">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1952] HCA 15">opposition proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1952] HCA 15">similarity of trade marks in respect of goods of same description</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1952] HCA 15">likelihood of deception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1952] HCA 15">trade marks act 1905-1948 (no. 20 of 1905-no. 76 of 1948), ss. 25, 114.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">bankruptcy and insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">application to set aside statutory demand for liability for costs pending appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">prior refusal of application for stay of order under appeal creating that liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">whether "some other reason" required setting-aside the demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">corporations act 2001 (cth), s 459j(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">held, a pending appeal is not sufficient to set aside a statutory demand for "some other reason" under s 459j(1)(b) unless substantial injustice caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 403">held no substantial injustice caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1446">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1446">application for an extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal indemnity costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1446">whether there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1446">whether there are sufficient prospects of success if leave were granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1446">whether there are 'special reasons' to justify the extension of time   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1446">indemnity costs order as a result of a court ordered mediation being abandoned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1446">whether the court has the power to order one party pay the costs of the other party in these circumstances</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 403" id="cs0">Leave to appeal in respect of the judgment whereby, materially, the payment of costs to be taxed was ordered has been given: see Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network, GP [2009] FCA 1445. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1446" id="cs1">As to the second condition (above), I explained in Food Channel Network Pty Ltd v Television Food Network G.P [2009] FCA 1445 , that the sufficiency of the doubt about the interlocutory judgment and the extent of the potential injustice involved, must be balanced against each other and not considered in isolation: see at [14]. For similar reasons, I consider that the explanation for the delay and the requirement to show special reasons should also be included in the same balancing process. In other words, if Channel's case is strong on its merits and if it can show substantial injustice will flow if leave is not granted, I consider I should be less demanding in relation to its explanation for delay and the special reasons it is required to show. In this respect, I note, and respectfully agree with, what appears to be a similar approach, outlined by Rares J in SZJFC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1322 at [20] --- [21]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 44 Previous representations of other persons</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 58 Inferences as to relevance</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 59 The hearsay rule--exclusion of hearsay evidence</title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 44 Oaths and affirmations</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 58 Offences by witness</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 59 Rules of Court</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 60 Regulations</title>
<title id="l12">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l13">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 42 Trade mark scandalous or its use contrary to law</title>
<title id="l14">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 43 Trade mark likely to deceive or cause confusion</title>
<title id="l15">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 44 Identical etc. trade marks</title>
<title id="l16">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 58 Applicant not owner of trade mark</title>
<title id="l17">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 59 Applicant not intending to use trade mark</title>
<title id="l18">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 60 Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia</title>
<title id="l19">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 195 Appeals</title>
<title id="l20">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 97">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 97">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 97">attorney-general's right to intervene in proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 97">joinder of attorney-general as party to proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">suspected association with persons suspected of being or having been involved in criminal conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">nature of association necessary to enliven ministerial discretion to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">laws of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">common law principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">clear legislative intention necessary to encroach upon fundamental rights and freedoms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">erroneously wide test applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 203">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1273">"[section 75(v) of the constitution ] serves a basic element of the rule of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1273">gleeson cj in plaintiff s157/2002 v commonwealth of australia (2003) 211 clr 476 at [5].</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="cp7.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1079">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1079">intervention of the trade practices commission pursuant to s. 163a of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1079">costs of intervention where principal proceedings settled.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">access to places and documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">to require person to produce books, documents and other papers in his custody or under his control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">random audit of top hundred companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">validity of decision to seek access to premises and to require production of documents of or relating to one such company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 263 , 264</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth),s.5(1)(d),(e).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">application for permanent entry permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">application based on "strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">applicant with criminal record of sexual offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">operation on applicant for removal of both testicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">subsequent reports of changed sexual behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">all close relations of applicant resident in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">claim of "strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds" found by delegate to be established but application rejected because of "real risk" of recidivism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether applicant was accorded procedural fairness in connection with consideration of risk of recidivism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether there was evidence to support a finding of "real risk" of recidivism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether decision was unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether it was unreasonable for decision to be taken without obtaining further information known to be available.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">judge approached in private chambers by court counsellor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">absence of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">counsellor prospective expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">views expressed favouring one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">reasonable apprehension that judge might not bring impartial mind to matter.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">status of court counsellor as officer of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">improper private approach by counsellor to judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law act 1975 (cth), ss.37 , 62a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law rules o.25, r.5.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">freedom of interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">prohibition of sale of potatoes by unregistered grower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether prohibition valid against unregistered grower who sells potatoes interstate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether registration provisions regulatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">provision for exaction of contributions from registered growers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether burden on interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">effect upon validity of requirements for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12) s. 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">potato marketing act, 1948-1973 (s.a.), ss. 12, 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">acts interpretation act, 1915 (s.a.), as amended, s. 22a.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWIRComm 175" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 Applications for review of conduct related to making of decisions</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 18 Intervention by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78A Intervention by Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l7">SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l8">SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 - SECT 94 Victimisation</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1134">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1134">veteran's entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1134">pension claim by veteran's widow</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1134">statement of principles concerning ischaemic heart disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1134">veteran exposed to an atmosphere with a visible tobacco smoke haze in an enclosed space for at least 1000 hours</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1134">whether clinical onset of veteran's ischaemic heart disease must occur within five years of the end of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 929">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 929">was myocardial infarction materially contributed to by passive smoking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 929">was death war-caused or connected to defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 929">decision under review is affirmed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1134" id="cs0">In reaching its conclusion about the correct interpretation of factor 6(i), the Tribunal referred to two judgments of this Court. The first was Kattenberg v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 412 , 34 AAR 562 (" Kattenberg "), where the Court held that the Tribunal had erred in law in holding (with regard to an SoP regarding intervertebral disc prolapse) that a factor requiring the smoking of at least 30 pack years of cigarettes before clinical onset signified that the 30 pack years must have occurred during service. The second was Repatriation Commission v Newson [2008] FCA 401 (" Newson ") which relates to SOPs on osteoarthrosis. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 929" id="cs1">"

The second ground of appeal is then made out, that the service element of a disease process need only make a material contribution to the ultimate disease was made clear by the later decision of Repatriation Commission v Newton (2008) FCA 401.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l1">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 7 Eligible war service</title>
<title id="l2">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 13 Eligibility for pension</title>
<title id="l3">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 14 Claim for pension</title>
<title id="l4">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 18 Duties of Commission in relation to pensions</title>
<title id="l5">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 19 Determination of claims and applications</title>
<title id="l6">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 120 Standard of proof</title>
<title id="l7">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 120B Reasonable satisfaction to be assessed in certain cases by reference to Statement of Principles</title>
<title id="l8">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 196A Establishment of Authority</title>
<title id="l9">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 196B Functions of Authority</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant exclusive dealer of mobile phone services for respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">respondent claims that commissions paid to applicant exceeded "cap" as specified in written dealership agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">notice issued by respondent requiring repayment of alleged overpayment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant claims respondent gave oral assurance in pre-contractual negotiations that "cap" would not be enforced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant further claims amount of overpayment miscalculated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">application for interlocutory injunction restraining respondent from requiring applicant to pay amount of alleged overpayment or treating failure to pay as grounds for termination of dealership agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">claim in promissory estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">claim for breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether either claim gives rise to a serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether balance of convenience favours grant of interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether discretionary factors operate to prevent such relief being granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">patrick stevedores operations no 2 pty ltd  ors v  maritime union of australia  ors  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">power under s 298u of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) and s 23 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) to grant interlocutory injunctions to restrict purported termination of labour supply agreements, termination of employment of employees, obtaining stevedoring services, engaging in conduct having the effect of termination employment of employees, and engaging in conduct having the effect of the divestment of assets or dealing with assets otherwise than in the ordinary course of business.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">mareva injunctions and other interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether within jurisdiction of the federal court of australia to grant injunction with the effect of fettering discretion of administrators appointed under pt 5.3a of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether effect of such injunction requires company to trade while insolvent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether injunction necessary to prevent frustration of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether confined to maintaining status quo at the time of making application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether available to protect the subject matter of litigation conferring greater rights than when application made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether appropriate on balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">effect on third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">appointment of administrators under pt 5.3a of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">powers and duties in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">personal liability in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">jurisdiction of court fettering discretion of administrators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">jurisdiction of court to make orders compelling administrators to retain employees and to trade while insolvent contrary to responsibilities under the corporations law.  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">stevedoring industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether restructuring of companies so as to remove assets from employer company with the effect of dismissing, injuring or altering the position of employees by reason of their membership of a union contravenes pt xa of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">nature of interlocutory injunctive relief available under s 298u of that act. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">joint or several tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory injunction an appropriate remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.28">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory mandatory injunction an appropriate remedy.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 4 Definitions</title>
<title id="l2">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 5 Definition of building work</title>
<title id="l3">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 36 Definitions</title>
<title id="l4">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 37 Definition of unlawful industrial action</title>
<title id="l5">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 38 Unlawful industrial action prohibited</title>
<title id="l6">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 39 Injunction against unlawful industrial action</title>
<title id="l7">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 43 Coercion in relation to engagement etc. of building employees and building contractors</title>
<title id="l8">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 48 Definitions</title>
<title id="l9">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 49 Penalties etc. for contravention of civil penalty provision</title>
<title id="l10">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 57 Australian Building and Construction Inspectors</title>
<title id="l11">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 69 Building association responsible for conduct of members etc.</title>
<title id="l12">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 76 Court not to require undertaking as to damages</title>
<title id="l13">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l14">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 75 Exception: interlocutory proceedings</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l16">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l17">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 36 Other terms and conditions</title>
<title id="l18">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 37 Acting AFPC Chair</title>
<title id="l19">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 38 Appointment</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">tax avoidance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether scheme to which part iva of income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) ("the act ") applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">investment in tea tree project</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether it would be concluded that taxpayer and his wife entered into scheme with dominant purpose of obtaining tax benefits. income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">prepaid management fees and prepaid interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether involved in carrying on a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether outgoings of capital nature. income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">determination made under s 177f of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether person making the determination was properly authorised to do so as delegate of the commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether discretion to make determination miscarried because the person who made the determination failed to take into account the personal circumstances of the taxpayer.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">income tax (cth) deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">interest expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">disallowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">objection decision on objection including additional amount in assessable income but allowing deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">appeal to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">taxpayer contending that additional amount not assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">ability of commissioner to contend that deductions not allowable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 190(b)*, 199+.  *section 190 of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) provided: "in proceedings under this part on a review before the tribunal or on appeal to a court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 58">. . . (b) the burden of proving that the assessment is excessive shall lie upon the taxpayer".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">scheme to reduce tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">tax benefit in connexion with scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">commissioner's power to cancel benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">scheme identification of facts by commissioner as scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">whether binding on power to cancel benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">reasonable expectation of inclusion of amount in taxpayer's assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">purpose of entering scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 177a(1) "scheme", (5), 177c(1)(a), 177d, 177f(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] HCA 42">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] HCA 42">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] HCA 42">outgoings allowable to extent to whichincurred in gaining or producing assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] HCA 42">disproportion between outgoings and income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] HCA 42">character of outgoings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] HCA 42">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 51(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">whether assessment excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">burden of proof on taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">error by commissioner in adopting basis of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">whether need to establish that tax assessed exceeds actual liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 3">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 166 , 167 (b), 177 (1), 190(b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">profit arising from the sale of property acquired for purposes of profit-making by sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">acquisition of land by public authority from taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">evidence of taxpayer of purpose of acquisition not accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">onus of proof of purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 18">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 26 (a), 190 (b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">profit arising from sale of property acquired for the purpose of profit-making by sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">compensation paid upon compulsory acquisition of land exceeding purchase price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">evidence of taxpayer as to purpose of acquisition of property not accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">absence of other evidence of purpose of acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1975] HCA 54">income tax assessment act 1936-1969 (cth), ss.26 (a), 190 (b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">amended assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">condition precedent to power to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts and consequential avoidance of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">income tax and social services contribution assessment act 1936-1955, ss. 170 (2), 173, 177 (1), 190 (b).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l1">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 166A Deemed assessment</title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 167 Default assessment</title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 170 Amendment of assessments</title>
<title id="l4">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177C Tax benefits</title>
<title id="l5">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177G Amendment of assessments</title>
<title id="l6">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 187 Evidence</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 190 Non-compliance with immigration clearance or section 192 basis of detention</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 197 Effect of escape from immigration detention</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 199 Dependants of removed non-citizens</title>
<title id="l12">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l13">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l14">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8 Delegation</title>
<title id="l15">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZ Person may seek review of, or appeal against, Commissioner's decision</title>
<title id="l16">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZN Time limit for appeals</title>
<title id="l17">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZO Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l18">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">access to pleadings by non-parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">o 46 r 6 federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">principles of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">s 50 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">administration of justice held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 836">interim injunction to prevent access by non-parties dissolved and costs awarded in favour of john fairfax publications pty ltd and nationwide news pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">media access to affidavits in evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">affidavits filed in ex parte proceedings for interim preservation orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">exhibiting transcripts of examinations under s 19 of the asic act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">objections based on speculative risks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">access permitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">public access to documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic courtroom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic media court book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">federal court rules , o 46 r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">ex parte injunctive interlocutory proceedings resulting in mareva orders but proceedings on merits otherwise not heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">access sought to pleadings against wishes of the parties by non-party financial newspaper on public interest grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">practice note no. 97 and pt 67 r7 scr</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">relevant principles guiding discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">harman principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">comparison with transcript.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement claimed to contravene the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused.  pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">amendment of statement of claim.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appeal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion under s.50 considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order made prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon appropriate undertakings being given.  trade practices act 1974 , ss 45 and 45a;  federal court of australia act 1976 , ss.17 and 50 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement alleged to contravene s. 45</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45a.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon undertakings given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 17 , 50 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">application to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">leave to amend refused by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments added substance. the australian broadcasting commission ("the a.b.c.") instituted proceedings in the federal court of australia against the members for the time being of the australian cricket board ("the board") and three corporations ("the corporations"). in the proceedings the a.b.c. sought certain relief for alleged breaches of the provisions of the trade practices act 1974 ("the act ") in relation to a written agreement between the board and the corporations dated 30th may, 1979. in the course of the proceedings the court refused to allow the a.b.c. to amend the already amended statement of claim in two separate respects. the a.b.c. appealed to the full court of the federal court of australia against this decision (appeal no. g13 of 1980). on the 18th february, 1980, the primary court decided further that the a.b.c. should be granted unrestricted access to certain parts of the agreement which were claimed to be confidential and that, upon the agreement being tendered and received in evidence, no order restricting publication of those parts of the agreement should be made pursuant to s. 50 of the federal court of australia act 1976 . appeals were lodged against the two last-mentioned decisions by the board and the three corporations (appeals nos. g14 and g15 of 1980). the three appeals were heard together and disposed of in a single judgment.  held: per curiam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">the appeal in matter g13 should be dismissed with costs because: (1) the proposed amendment to par. 5 of the amended statement of claim was ambiguous and added nothing of substance.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">finalised proofs of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">whether litigation privilege exists where documents created for purpose of providing to opposing party and in fact so provided  privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">whether filing and service, without more, of finalised proofs of evidence constitutes waiver of privilege privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">distinction between privilege and implied undertaking practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">whether leave to appeal against interlocutory ruling ought to be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">case raises a matter of public importance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">possible loss of substantive right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">leave granted practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">issue not taken below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">when allowed to be raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">when in interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">issue concerns substantive right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">party repudiating stance adopted at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">no prejudice to opposing party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 32">in interests of justice to allow</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">non-party applied to inspect court file of defunct proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">application for inspection made for the purposes of litigation where orders for preliminary discovery would not be available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">application for inspection not limited to documents admitted into evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">leave to inspect ordinarily to be granted except where the interests of justice require otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">access to justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">leave to inspect limited to affidavit material admitted into evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">exhibits not the property of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">leave to inspect exhibits refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2007] WASC 133">civil practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2007] WASC 133">application to inspect and copy affidavit and annexure under o 67 r 11 and court's inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2007] WASC 133">principles of open justice</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 32" id="cs0">61 There is undoubtedly a distinction between a pleading on the one hand and proofs of evidence and affidavits filed in accordance with a direction given by the Court on the other. Pleadings may be inspected, unless a confidentiality order is in place, by a search of the Registry: see O 46 r 6(1) and (2) of the Federal Court Rules (Cth). On the other hand, affidavits and witness statements filed will not be able to be inspected without the leave of the Court, and this may not occur if the affidavit or witness statement has not been admitted into evidence or otherwise relied upon or referred to: see O 46 r 6(3) and Churche v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 3) [2006] FCA 1168 at [26] . We note that, whilst O 46 r 6(3) distinguishes between affidavits (see O 46 r 6(3)(a) and unsworn statements of evidence (see O 46 r 6(3)(b)), no different consequence arises from the fact that there exists affidavits or unsworn statements of evidence.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 123" id="cs1">It is, therefore, appropriate to permit access to the affidavits read on the applicant's and respondents' behalf unless there is good reason not to do so: see, eg Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal Corporation v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [2006] FCA 606. An order under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), or if there was some other legislative provision which directed that certain information be regarded as confidential, would probably displace that starting point: Churche v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 3) [2006] FCA 1168. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 783" id="cs2">73 This seems to me to be consistent with the approach taken by Cowdroy J in Churche v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 3) [2006] FCA 1168 at [26] . His Honour granted access to affidavits admitted into evidence, but access was otherwise refused. Access was granted to annexures but they form part of the affidavit and are to be distinguished from exhibits in the proceedings.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] WASC 133" id="cs3">43 Order 46 r 6 of the Federal Court Rules was recently considered by Cowdroy J in Churche v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 3) [2006] FCA 1168. Cowdroy J considered whether leave should be granted to various media organisations to access parts of the file to which O 46 r 6(3) applies. Cowdroy J referred to the statements of Finkelstein J in ACCC v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd ( supra ) to which I have earlier referred. His Honour referred to the following statement of Sackville J at [27] of Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 1394 ; (2005) 148 FCR 1:
 "[I]t seems to me that unless the interests of justice require otherwise, this court would ordinarily take the view that a non-party should have access to all non-confidential documents and other material admitted into evidence. I say 'ordinarily' because the circumstances of each case will vary and the exercise of the discretion under O 46, r 6 of the Rules will have take into account the particular circumstances of the case. I agree ... that a convenient touchstone for determining the question of access by non-parties is whether the documents or other material have been admitted into evidence. In general, the application of this principle will serve the interests of open justice. In particular, access to the documentary evidence can be expected to be helpful to a person seeking to understand or explain the proceedings, or to evaluate the Court's determination of the issues arising in the proceeding. " </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 11 Oath or affirmation of office</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 50 Prohibition of publication of evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l3">INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l4">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 50 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l5">INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 60 Report of APRA or the inspector</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 62 Information etc. in relation to certain applications</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190A Registrar to consider claims</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190B Registration: conditions about merits of the claim</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190C Registration: conditions about procedural and other matters</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">repatriation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">death of former member of armed forces from carcinoma</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">refusal by repatriation review tribunal to grant applicant's claim for war widow's pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">whether on appeal to federal court the whole decision of the tribunal was open to review by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">whether on the evidence before it the tribunal could conclude that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the member's death did not arise out of or was not attributable to war service.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">damage to appellant's grazing property by fire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">appellant plaintiff in action for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">lump sum paid by defendant in full settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">calculated by defendant from his own list of items of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">method of calculation not revealed to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">amount received as lump sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">certain items in defendant's list in the nature of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">claim that whole or part of amount paid assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">income tax and social services contribution assessment act 1936-1955 (cth), ss. 17, 26 (j), 59.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 257">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 257">proceedings discontinued with leave after conclusion of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 257">detailed draft reasons for judgment prepared by trial judge prior to discontinuance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 257">costs awarded on normal basis having regard to draft reasons.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">concrete pty ltd v parramatta design  developments pty ltd  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">architect's drawings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">two companies formed a joint venture and purchased a development site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">director and shareholder of one of the companies in the joint venture also sole director and shareholder of architectural firm engaged as architect to prepare drawings for a development application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">consent received from local council for development in accordance with the drawings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">joint venturer's dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">site sold by trustees for sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">purchaser of site on notice that architect sought to deny the purchaser's use of the drawings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">whether purchaser of site had an implied licence to use the drawings.  courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">exchange between bench and counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">questioning of witness by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 55">whether trial miscarried on the ground of apprehended bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">smits v roach  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">disqualification of judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">right to trial by independent and impartial tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">familial association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">brother of judge alleged to have an indirect pecuniary interest in outcome of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">associated party given access to judge's draft reasons in advance of delivery -non-disclosure of association until conclusion of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">whether apprehension of bias reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">whether connection between familial association and feared deviation from impartial decision articulated. courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">disqualification of judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">familial association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">brother of judge alleged to have an indirect pecuniary interest in outcome of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">failure to object promptly to judge's participation in the trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">waiver of right to object. legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">barrister and client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">relationship of agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 36">imputation to litigant of knowledge possessed by counsel.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">antoun v the queen  antoun v the queen  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">judge sitting alone in criminal trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 2">standards of fairness and detachment required of a trial judge.   gleeson cj. the appellants were jointly charged with demanding money with menaces from michael savvas, with intent to steal. the trial was conducted in the district court of new south wales before judge christie, sitting without a jury. the appellants were convicted, and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. they appealed unsuccessfully to the court of criminal appeal of new south wales [1] . the sole ground of their further appeal to this court is that the trial judge conducted himself in such a way that a fair-minded observer might reasonably apprehend that he might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question whether the appellants ought to be convicted. that ground is conveniently summarised as "apprehended bias". the apprehended bias is said to have arisen from two aspects of the trial judge's conduct in particular: first, the manner in which he dealt with what was described as a submission of no case to answer; secondly, his manner of raising and dealing with a question of bail.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">johnson v johnson  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">application for disqualification for bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">statement by trial judge about evidence to be relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 48">whether statement gave rise to reasonable apprehension of bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 49">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 49">application to wind-up company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 49">disputed debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 49">whether appropriate to determine disputed debt in the course of the winding-up application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 49">factors relevant to the exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 510">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 510">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 510">application for disqualification of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 510">whether apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 510">principles applied in determining whether apprehension of bias.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 49" id="cs0">110 Briefly, the reasons why I would do so are as follows. Three of the four circumstances which were said to combine together to sustain a reasonable apprehension of bias were dealt with by the primary judge in an interlocutory judgment made necessary because Lanepoint belatedly asked him to disqualify himself as judgment was about to be delivered. He concluded that Lanepoint had waived any right to rely upon the matters it sought to raise and that, in any event, they provided no foundation for the application which it made ( Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 258). I can see no error in the way in which the primary judge dealt with the contentions which were there raised. 78 This application arose in the following circumstances. After the conclusion of the hearing before the primary judge, and shortly before the primary judge handed down his judgment, Lanepoint brought an application that the primary judge disqualify himself on the grounds of apprehended bias. Lanepoint relied on three prior associations affecting the primary judge and Mr Carey and his associated companies, as giving rise to the apprehension of bias. The primary judge refused to disqualify himself ( Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Lanepoint Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 258). The amended grounds of appeal referred to the three associations that were considered by the primary judge in that judgment, and then added a further association between the primary judge and Mr Norman Carey which, contended Lanepoint, added weight to its contention that these associations, when considered cumulatively, gave rise to an apprehension of bias on the part of the primary judge.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 510" id="cs1">The legal principles with respect to the disqualification of a Federal Magistrate for apprehended bias are firmly established and may be summarised as follows: the test is whether a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Federal Magistrate might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the question required to be decided; [96] the application of the test requires two steps: the identification of what it is said might lead a Federal Magistrate to decide a case other than on its legal and factual merits; and an articulation of the logical connection between the matter and the feared deviation from the course of deciding the case on its merits; [97] the fair minded lay observer is a person who is: informed, objective, and taken to be reasonable; [98] not assumed to have a detailed knowledge of the law or the character or ability of a particular Federal Magistrate, but rather a general knowledge of ordinary judicial practice and the actual circumstances of the case; [99] the Federal Magistrate being observed is a professional judicial officer who by training, tradition and oath or affirmation is required to discard the irrelevant, immaterial and prejudicial; [100] a Federal Magistrate's duty is to hear and determine the litigation before the Court, and not to accede too readily to suggestions of an apprehension of bias, lest parties be encouraged to seek such disqualification without justification; [101] disqualification is only made out by firmly establishing that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias by reason of prejudgment, that is that the Federal Magistrate's mind is so prejudiced in favour of a conclusion already formed that it is not susceptible to alteration of that conclusion irrespective of the evidence or arguments presented; [102] and comments made by a federal magistrate must be considered in the context in which they are made, including the context of: ordinary judicial practice; the exigencies of modern litigation. [103] </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459C Presumptions to be made in certain proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">tribunal is obliged to address the applicant's claims but is not obliged to consider every assertion of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">applicant notified of inadequacy of information provided to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">non-attendance at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">inevitable result of non-attendance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">s 424a(1) and (2) complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">reason for the decision the absence of information provided not the information itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1811">tribunal decision not dependent on disparity between the visa application and the claims made by the applicant to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">muin v refugee review tribunal  lie v refugee review tribunal  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">decision by minister to refuse application for visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">obligation of secretary of department of immigration and multicultural affairs to give relevant documents to registrar of tribunal for purpose of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">nature and extent of obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 418(3) , 424 (1).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of administrative decision by officers of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refusal to grant protection visa to claimant for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">requirement of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">availability of constitutional relief under s 75(v) and other relief for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1204">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1204">review of rrt decision − where applicant claimed persecution on basis of the convention ground of religion (ahmadia) − where applicant failed to produce proof of his ahmadi membership to the tribunal − where tribunal considered this failure to produce further evidence damaged the applicant's credibility − whether tribunal's information that the australian ahmadi association provides confirmation about a person's adherence to ahmadia is 'information' for the purposes of s.424a − whether the non provision of that information to the applicant caused the tribunal to be in breach of s.424a.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1204" id="cs0">I am equally satisifed that this is not a case such as that considered by Tamberlin J in S266/2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 651 where as his Honour says at [8]:

 "The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not provided details of the history of involvement, what has happened to him as a result of any alleged persecution..."

which enabled him to say at [15]:

 "The reference to "information" in s.424A does not encompass a failure to mention a matter to the Tribunal.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 266 Future debts</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>