Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 310">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 310">whether contractual provision a penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 310">whether forfeiture of accrued propertyforfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 310">relation of forfeiture to imposition of penaltyconstruction of contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 310">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">professional indemnity insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">construction of contracts of insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">whether loss arose out of design fault or construction work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">exclusion of liabilityindemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">whether grant of indemnity an admission of liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">whether payment under co-ordinate policy extinguished rights against underlying insurerwords  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">meaning of "paid"practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">duty of parties to co-operate and be clear as to issues in litigation, especially in the commercial list.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">gumland property holdings pty limited v duffy bros fruit market (campbelltown) pty limited  contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">termination for breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">ability to recover substantial damages after termination where termination based on express provision making contractual term essential.  contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">breach of term by lessee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">whether lessor entitled after terminating lease to recover loss of bargain damages where but for express contractual provisions providing for the consequences of breach the lessor would not have been entitled to terminate.  real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">covenants that touch and concern the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">whether the right to seek damages for breach of covenant to pay rent touches and concerns the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">whether the assignee of a leasehold reversion is entitled to terminate a lease and recover loss of bargain damages, notwithstanding the absence of privity of contract between the assignee and lessee.  real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">guarantors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] HCA 10">whether guarantor's covenant to guarantee payment of rent by the lessee touches and concerns the land and passes with the leasehold reversion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">penalties and forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">where loan origination and management agreement contains promise by originator to act honestly and not engage in deceptive conduct, and provision for termination by manager for various events of default, including failure to rectify a breach of contract or engaging in deceptive or fraudulent activity or an insolvency event or a change of control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">where contract provides that upon termination for insolvency or fraud (but not otherwise) originator has no further right to trailer commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">whether right to trailer commission is an accrued right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">whether doctrine of penalties limited to obligations to pay agreed sum of money or extends to provisions forfeiting entitlement to receive accrued remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 406">whether doctrine limited to payments conditioned on breach or extends to events of default not being breaches but within payer's domain.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">application for preliminary discovery o 15a federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">applicant at trial sought leave to discontinue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">leave refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">application at first instance dismissed as applicant tendered no evidence costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether appellant should pay certain costs of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether discovery by appellant provided the respondent with sufficient information to determine whether to pursue its causes of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether primary judge erred in principles applied to dismissal of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether primary judge misapprehended relevant facts to be considered when making costs orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">ringrow pty ltd v bp australia pty ltd  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">agreement to purchase service station from distributor of fuel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">collateral agreement requiring fuel to be purchased exclusively from distributor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">breach of collateral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">termination of collateral agreement by distributor pursuant to contractual power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">option to buy back service station exercisable by distributor on termination of collateral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">whether option void and unenforceable as a penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">whether exercise of option oppressive or extravagant and unconscionable compared with genuine pre-estimate of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">relevance of proportionality to penalty questions.   gleeson cj, gummow, kirby, hayne, callinan and heydon jj. these appeals concern the effect of contracts by which each of ringrow pty ltd, ultimate fuel pty ltd and nader-one pty ltd bought service stations from bp australia pty ltd. the identical point arises in each appeal and it is convenient to confine analysis to the first appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1159">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1159">general approach to preparation of matter for trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1159">duty of the parties to co-operate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">zhu v the treasurer of the state of new south wales  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">interference with contractual relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">contract between the plaintiff and toc management services pty ltd ("toc") authorised and obliged the plaintiff to sell memberships in an "olympic club" to residents of china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">sydney organising committee for the olympic games ("socog") interfered with the plaintiff's contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether socog had obligations to protect intellectual property under the olympic charter and the contract by which sydney hosted the 2000 olympic games</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether the plaintiff contravened the sydney 2000 games (indicia and images) protection act 1996 (cth), s 12</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether socog's interference with the plaintiff's contract was justified.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">interference with contractual relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">defence of justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">toc owed contractual obligations to socog not to engage in certain conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">contract between toc and the plaintiff obliged the plaintiff to engage in conduct contrary to the contract between toc and socog</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether socog held "proprietary" or "quasi-proprietary" rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether socog held an "actually existing superior legal right"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether socog's conduct was "reasonably necessary"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether socog was justified in interfering with the contract between toc and the plaintiff.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">deed poll</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">plaintiff executed deed poll in favour of socog</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">plaintiff was required to execute deed poll pursuant to contract between the plaintiff and toc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">plaintiff did not know there was a separate contract between socog and toc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether deed poll and contracts inconsistent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">construction of deed poll and contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether the plaintiff's activities required socog's prior written consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 56">whether the plaintiff breached the deed poll or his contract.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">nt power generation pty ltd v power and water authority  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">market definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">substantial degree of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority had a monopoly in the markets for electricity transmission and distribution services and for electricity supply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where authority owned the transmission and distribution infrastructure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where no transactions occurred in the transmission and distribution services market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether authority's control of the infrastructure gave it market power in both markets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 46(1) , 46 (4)(c).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">taking advantage of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether statutory authority's refusal of access to its infrastructure involved taking advantage of its market power or only of its proprietary rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether refusal was due to a "direction" from the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether minister's purpose in giving direction meant authority's refusal was not for a proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether authority's regulatory role meant refusal was not for a proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 46(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">power and water authority act (nt), s 16.  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">crown in right of the northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">carrying on a business under the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">exceptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority had a monopoly in the markets for electricity transmission and distribution services and for electricity supply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where authority owned the transmission and distribution infrastructure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether authority's exclusive use of the infrastructure was part of carrying on a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether refusal of access to infrastructure was merely refusal of a "licence" and thus not part of carrying on a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 2b, 2c(1)(b).  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">crown in right of the northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.28">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">"emanation of the crown"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.29">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority established by the territory government was the sole beneficial owner of a trading corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.30">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where corporation incorporated under general enactment for the incorporation of companies rather than specific statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.31">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where corporation acquired for specific government purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.32">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether corporation was an "emanation of the crown".  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.33">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.34">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">crown in right of the northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.35">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">"derivative crown immunity"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.36">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where statutory authority established by the territory government was the sole beneficial owner of a trading corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.37">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where corporation entered into contracts with third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.38">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where financial interests of the government potentially prejudiced by preventing enforcement of those contracts under the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.39">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where no legal or proprietary interests of the government affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.40">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether corporation could claim "derivative crown immunity".  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.41">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.42">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">where points made in original pleadings but not relied on and no evidence called at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.43">cited from="[2004] HCA 48">whether points can be taken on appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">royal botanic gardens and domain trust v south sydney city council  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">construction of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">determination of rent by lessor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">lease provided that, in determining amount of rent payable, lessor "may have regard to" certain additional costs and expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">whether lessor limited to consideration of those factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">use of surrounding circumstances to assist in interpretation of written contract in case of ambiguity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">both parties public bodies operating under particular legislative regimes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">whether statutory powers of lessor relevant to the meaning of the lease and the exercise of the determination of the amount of rent payable under the lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">transaction of a non-commercial nature and designed to provide a public facility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">whether covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contractual dealings.  precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">application of codelfa construction pty ltd v state rail authority of nsw</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">status in other australian courts of subsequent english authority.  construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">deed of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">primary duty to construe language of the lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">use of surrounding circumstances to assist in interpretation of written contract in case of ambiguity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">both parties public bodies operating under particular legislative regimes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">whether statutory powers of lessor relevant to the construction of the lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 5">whether covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in contractual dealings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">civil practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">judicial discretion to allow claim out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">prejudice to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">claim out of time under motor accidents act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">appeal against decision denying leave to commence proceedings out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">whether defendant would suffer prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">discussion and commentary on modern role for ambush and adversarial tactics in civil proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">motor accidents act 1988 (nsw), s 52(4).  civil practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">discretion of court of appeal to admit new evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">appeal against decision denying leave to commence proceedings out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">evidence relating to causation of personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">supreme court act 1970 (nsw), s 75a(7) -(9).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">agreement for hire of chattel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">failure to pay instalments of hire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">termination by owner pursuant to contractual power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">instalments due but unpaid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 63">damages for loss of contract.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">hire of vehicle for term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">liability of lessee on repossession before end of term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">provision that entire rent for term due at commencement of term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">entire rent not payable if instalments duly paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">provision entitling lessor to retain possession and sue for total rent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">no credit for accelerated payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">no credit for proceeds of sale of vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">whether penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 3">equitable relief against forfeiture.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">hire of chattels for term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">liability of lessee on repossession and on return before or at the end of term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">payment of deficiency where equipment sold or valued at amount less than appraisal value stated in lease and upon which rent based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">credit for excess</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">payment of present value of future instalments of rent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 1">whether issue of penalty and pre-estimate of damages arises.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">restrictive covenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">construction of terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">meaning of 'building'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">mandatory injunction to remedy breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">whether discretion should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">acquiescence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">disproportion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">unclean hands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">oppressive or vindictive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">citing from="[2010] WASC 127">whether damages in lieu a proper remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">motor vehicle insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insurance claim for indemnity value of car arising from motor vehicle accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insured seeking to rely on insurer's duty of utmost good faith under ss 13 and 14 of the insurance contracts act 1984 (cth)  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">insured seeks to raise new issues a week before hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">new document relating to psychiatric report introduced and alleged to be used in a manner not previously contemplated in pre-trial directions hearings or otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">whether such an issue should be permitted to be raised at a late stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 274">introduction and reliance on expert report without giving other party an opportunity to deal with that issue is an inappropriate departure from principles of case management and part vb of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] WASC 127" id="cs0">14 The parties agree that the ordinary principles of construction of contracts should be applied to the terms of the restrictive covenant. In this regard reference was made to Intel Corporation v Unwired Group [2008] FCA 1927 a case relating to the construction of a deed poll executed for the benefit of third parties. The plaintiff submitted that the process of construction involves discerning what a reasonable person would understand from the language used in the restrictive covenant having regard to the objective surrounding circumstances and the purpose and object of the deed: Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphafarm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52 ; (2004) 219 CLR 165 , 179.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 274" id="cs1">But it should not be thought that that overarching objective and those ends of justice have not been prominently a part of this Court's practice and procedure for many years. In White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333 [4], Allsop J eloquently demonstrated that this is so. I drew on his remarks and those of others in Intel Corporation v Unwired Group Limited [2008] FCA 1927 [63]-[64], to identify that:

 "... the purpose of case management and the docket system adopted by this Court was to enable both the parties and the Court to be informed, from the outset of the case each of the parties intends to advance and to identify the real issues in dispute. This is so that directions can be crafted to enable the efficient management of the litigation, with a view to focusing on and allowing those issues to be tried, and, at the same time, eliminating irrelevant matters quickly and efficiently: White v Overland [2001] FCA 1333 at [3]- [4] per Allsop J (applied by Heydon JA in Nowlan v Marson Transport Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 346 ; (2001) 53 NSWLR 116 at 128-129 [28] - [32], Mason P and Young CJ in Eq agreeing); Visible Results Properties Inc v Sushi Train (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1159 at [29] per Allsop J; Snowy Mountains Organic Dairy Products Pty Ltd v Wholefoods Pty [2006] FCA 1361 at [15] per myself; Baulderstone Hornibrook Engineering Pty Ltd v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2008] NSWCA 243 at [160] - [162] per Allsop P, with whom Beazley and Campbell JJA agreed. "

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 611 Exceptions to the prohibition</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l5">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l6">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 - SECT 6 Special federal matters: general rules</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l8">CIVIL PROCEDURE ACT 2005 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">slip and fall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether employer failed to provide a safe means of access between car park and offices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether stairs slippery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether expert evidence on slipperiness of stairs should have been accepted by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">discussion in obiter dicta about credibility of party-witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">where employee injured whilst walking between roof-top car park and office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">where lack of previous slipping accidents on stairs  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">admissibility and use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">discussion of common law and statutory requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">need for expert witness to reveal factual and intellectual basis of opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">evidence act 1995 (nsw), ss 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 and 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">hg v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">sexual assault</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert evidence excluded under s 409b of crimes act 1900 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether evidence of prior sexual assault is evidence of prior sexual activity or experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether s 409b applies only to evidence of consensual prior sexual activity or experience.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">admissibility of expert opinion under evidence act 1995 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert opinion must be within field of specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether expert opinion must be based on facts themselves admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether parts of opinion severable.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">refusal to grant adjournment for purposes of calling expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether refusal constituted miscarriage of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">whether specialised knowledge or expertise established to admit evidence under s 79 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">infringements of trademarks and copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">adequacy of compensatory damages, damages to reputation and additional damages pursuant to s 115 of the copyright act 1968 (cth)  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">requirements of o 23 of the federal court rules 1979 (cth) and calderbank v calderbank [1975] 3 all er 333</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 344">whether offer of compromise and rejection letter considered by court in the exercise of its general costs discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 584">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 584">alleged infringements of trade marks and copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 584">items sold with logos the subject of trade marks and copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 584">alleged breach of fair trading act 1987 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 584">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 584">consideration of remedies.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1263">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1263">expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1263">question whether council's approval required under planning instrrument for particular activity on land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1263">planning instrument refers to "agriculture" in a defined sense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1263">whether expert can give evidence about application of legal standard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1263">whether opinion about meaning of "agreement" based on expert's specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1263">whether such opinion of probative value</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 344" id="cs0">Secondly, and in any event, I can identify no error in the reasoning of the Federal Magistrate. The Federal Magistrate recorded, as was the fact, that Mr Musulin had not been trained in recognising counterfeit products. However, he accepted that consistent with the views expressed by Emmett J in Pan Pharmaceuticals Limited (in liq) v Selim [2008] FCA 416 at [30] --- [37], it was possible that special knowledge or expertise might be the subject of experience especially in the case of managers. It was on this basis that the Federal Magistrate accepted Mr Musulin's evidence. I agree.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 584" id="cs1">In Pan Pharmaceuticals Ltd (In liq) v Selim [2008] FCA 416 , Emmett J dealt with this matter in terms. Without setting it out, I respectfully adopt what was put by his Honour in that case at [30] - [37]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 1263" id="cs2">

19 The third basis of objection is, in essence, relevance. It was explained by reference to the to observations of Emmett J in Pan Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd v Selim [2008] FCA 416 concerning opinion evidence as to whether particular conduct that the expert is asked to assume satisfies or falls short of some legal standard as when a medical practitioner says that a particular procedure was conducted negligently. His Honour said at [36] and [37]:

 "[36] Very little, if any weight, should ever be accorded the last category of opinion evidence. It may be admissible by reason of the operation of s 80 , however, in so far as it is an opinion by reference to a legal standard, it will be essential, before it can be admissible and certainly before any weight can be afforded to it, that the expert's understanding of the relevant legal standard be established and be shown to be in accordance with the law.

 [37] Thus, an opinion as to whether conduct satisfies or falls short of a particular standard, such as whether particular conduct was in breach of a duty of care entails an examination as to what the expert's understanding is of the duty of care. Where the so-called opinion is proffered as to whether conduct satisfies or falls short of a statutory requirement, such as the Code, the expert must make clear just what his understanding of the effect of the Code might be. Unless the witness makes perfectly clear what he understands the Code to mean, his evidence as to whether particular conduct satisfies or falls short of it cannot be tested and can have no weight. " </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 2 Commencement [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 79 Exception: opinions based on specialised knowledge</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 80 Ultimate issue and common knowledge rules abolished</title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l5">THERAPEUTIC GOODS ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">costs of appeal where successful party abandoned a number of grounds of appeal prior to the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">where successful party was unsuccessful on substantive issues of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">where circumstances justify apportionment of costs between the parties according to their success or failure on separate issues  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">costs of the motion on notice seeking variation of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">where motion was unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">no circumstance existed to justify departure from the ordinary principle that costs follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">applicant investors in a failed start-up company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">claim to have been induced to invest by conduct in contravention of ss 52 and 59 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth), the fair trading act 1987 (sa) and the fair trading act 1987 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">claims which involved investments in securities precluded by s 51af of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) and s 995a of the corporations law  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">investors claim to have been induced to invest by conduct in contravention of s 995 of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">substantially the same claim as under the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">instances of misleading or deceptive conduct established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">conduct did not induce the applicants to invest or was inconsequential negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">duty of care claimed to be owed by accountant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">representations pleaded as breaching this duty were not relied upon by the applicants fiduciary law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">fiduciary duty claimed to exist as between licensor and licensee or as promoters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">alleged non-disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">no fiduciary relationship insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">cross-claim made by insured against insurer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">clause within the policy that if full payment of the premium was not made then there would be no cover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">late payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 583">no insurance cover at the relevant time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] instant colour pty ltd (acn 009 300 501)  ors v canon australia pty ltd (acn 005 002 951)  anor [1996] fca 1097 (13 december 1996)   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">whether public wrong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">conduct of respondents' pre-litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">conduct of respondents during litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">success of applicants on certain issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">finding of fraud against respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">respondents successful on reliance and causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">whether no order as to costs appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1097">whether apportionment appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">practice (n.s.w)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">litigant in person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">compensation for time spent in preparation and conduct of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">whether entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w), ss. 19(1) , 76(1) supreme court rules 1970 (n.s.w), pt 52 , r. 23(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates' courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">discretion to award costs to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates (summary proceedings) act 1975 (vict.), s.97(b).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1482">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1482">ex parte application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1482">preliminary discovery and preservation of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">appeal from single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">whether there is power to issue notice to produce under order 33 rule 12 where applicant for notice is a respondent to pre-action discovery under order 15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">whether order 15a is a self-contained order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 115">appeal allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">federal court rules order 15a rule 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">whether reasonable cause to believe that applicant has or may have right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">asserted claims for breach of warranty, misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">low threshold requirement for reasonable belief, however belief must amount to more than a mere possibility or speculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">entitlement to preliminary discovery in order for applicant to ascertain defences available to respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">representations made as to future financial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">onus on respondent to show reasonableness of future representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">preliminary discovery appropriate in relation to future representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">application for preliminary discovery otherwise denied trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">representations as to future financial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">video link evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">application to take evidence of overseas witnesses by video link</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">inconvenience in coming to australia shown in respect of two witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">no inconvenience shown in respect of other witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">whether the principle upon which the court now acts is that evidence at trial of an overseas witness may be given by video link unless good reason is shown to the contrary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">differing views in the authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 651">until the rules of court are amended to provide otherwise, it should be assumed that an overseas witness required for cross examination will attend in person to give evidence and that evidence by video link will be allowed only upon application supported by evidence showing a good reason for the witness not to attend in person.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">discovery before action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">order analogous to anton piller order to ensure preservation of information in computer data base</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">construction of order 15a rule 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">rule is designed to facilitate what has been called "fishing"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">rule beneficial and to be given fullest scope its language reasonably allows</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">discretion of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">case where not reasonable to require further inquiry to be made.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">applicant a woman with culturally induced reluctance to divulge to men what had happened to her</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">indications in material in support of application that she had not divulged everything</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">tribunal member made no attempt to ascertain what more she might say</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">relevance of ministerial guidelines for dealing with gender-related claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">whether guidelines applicable to tribunal estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">res judicata , issue estoppel and anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">previous proceedings in respect of same decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">denial of procedural fairness not raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">could not have been raised in previous federal court proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">not raised in previous high court proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">application for order nisi dismissed by consent courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">time limitations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">proceeding remitted from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1641">whether time limits in high court rules applicable in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">application for leave to appeal against dismissal of proceedings as abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">whether discretion miscarried abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">where applicant applied to federal court for review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">where application discontinued by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">where applicant filed fresh application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">whether seeking to re-litigate issues disposed of in earlier application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1374">whether abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1018">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1018">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal brought out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1018">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1018">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1018">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1018">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 132">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 132">prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 132">discretion to refuse relief due to delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 132">delay of five years migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 132">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 132">failure to consider relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 132">whether tribunal must specifically record findings on all evidence before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">re commonwealth of australia  anor; ex parte marks  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">factors to be considered.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">constitutional relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether full bench of australian industrial relations commission made a jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">role of full bench on appeal.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether s 347 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether proceedings commenced "vexatiously or without reasonable cause".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">re ruddock  ors; ex parte reyes  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">constitutional relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">whether the immigration review tribunal made a jurisdictional error.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">constitutional relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">whether writ of prohibition properly sought against the minister.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">constitutional relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">whether writ of mandamus properly sought against the principal member of the migration review tribunal.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">constitutional relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 66">whether person constituting tribunal should be respondent to application for constitutional relief.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1755">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1755">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1755">refusal of a grant of refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1755">unexplained period of delay in commencing these proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1755">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 457">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 457">conceded jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 457">seven year delay in application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 457">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 457">explanation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 457">evidence</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1755" id="cs0">(references omitted)

He submits that since constitutional writs are directed at acts or decisions of public bodies or officials, public interest requires that there be an end to litigation: Applicant M221/2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 45 at [19] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 457" id="cs1">33 An important consideration which informs the exercise of the discretion on the ground of delay is that the public interest requires there be an end to litigation about the efficacy of acts and decisions of public bodies and officials; see Applicant M221 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 45 at [19] per Weinberg J; see also the Full Court in S58 at [4].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 198 Removal from Australia of unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 591">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 591">whether orders should be made for later determination of any questions of quantum of damages and account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 591">orders granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">o 29 r 2 fcr</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">determination of separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">whether questions of 'liability', and damages and other relief, should be determined separately in a proceeding alleging contravention of ss 52 and 53 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">whether determination of separate questions would best promote the overarching purpose in s 37m federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 466">whether appropriate to determine questions separately where it is possible that the same witnesses will be called at each stage of a split hearing</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] SASCFC 59" id="cs0">There has been much consideration of Aon in later decisions, both at the interlocutory single judge level and at the intermediate court level. There have been in the order of 200 published judgments where Aon has influenced the decision. Although not all of those involve applications to amend pleadings, a substantial number do. In those proceedings, the circumstances surrounding the applications to amend are varied. Unsurprisingly, different results have ensued. Applications to amend raising points of substance, prior to the setting of a date for trial, have almost always without exception, [105] been allowed. [106] Appropriate orders to address prejudice have been made. [107] Applications to amend at or immediately prior to or during trial have often been refused, [108] however, even very late applications to amend have been allowed. [109] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 466" id="cs1">The general principles relating to the application of the rule are well-known. They are set out in Reading Australia Pty Ltd v Australian Mutual Provident Society [1999] FCA 718 ; (1999) 217 ALR 495. It is not necessary to recite those principles. Recent case examples in which Reading has been considered and applied include: Australian Equity Investors, An Arizona Limited Partnership v Colliers International (NSW) Pty Limited [2010] FCA 254 ; Permanent Custodians Ltd v Tony Geagea  Ors [2010] NSWSC 117 ; Scantech Ltd v Asbury [2009] FCA 1480 ; SA Water Corporation v United Water International Pty Ltd [2009] SASC 383 ; BW Offshore Ltd v Anzon Australia Limited [2009] FCA 1133 ; Sadiqi v Commonwealth (No 2) [2009] FCA 1117 ; (2009) 181 FCR 1 ; Media Ocean Limited v Optus Mobile Pty Limited (No 5) [2009] FCA 659 ; and Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Agostini [2009] FCA 534 ; (2009) 177 FCR 449. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 52 Doing acts</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 183 Use of information--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1989 - SECT 38 38 Definition for div 2</title>
<title id="l6">FAIR TRADING ACT 1989 - SECT 52 52 Miscellaneous supporting provision for proceedings for recovery of pecuniary penalties</title>
<title id="l7">FAIR TRADING ACT 1989 - SECT 53 53 Interpretation of offence provisions</title>
<title id="l8">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">application for leave to file a cross-claim out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">adjournment to file further evidence, made at hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 118">whether appealable error shown.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">application for leave to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether proposed further amended statement of claim discloses reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether failure to plead material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether pleading embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether leave should be refused on discretionary grounds tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">tort of conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether appropriately pleaded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">requirement that conspirators intend to injure applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether "target" too general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">"unlawful means" conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether breach of contract constitutes "unlawful means"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether making of "false suggestion" to accc relevantly unlawful act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether breach of undertaking given under s 87b of trade practices act 1974 (cth) relevantly unlawful act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether provision of false or misleading document to accc conduct "in trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether conspiracy claim "mere surplusage"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether unlawful act must itself be actionable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2003] FCA 1537">whether "unlawful means" must be same act for all conspirators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">circumstances where discretionary decision (whether to permit amendment involving withdrawal of admission on the pleadings, and re-opening of case) could be reviewed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">errors of fact and law.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">discussion of principles governing allowance of an amendment to a pleading and re-opening of a party's case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">effect of mistaken admission in defence having resulted from false and misleading statements in the statement of claim and affidavit of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">effect of applicant's failure to discover documents which would have revealed the true position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">discussion of whether the respondent who made the admission on the pleading should have known or suspected the true position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 470">discussion of the principle that the court ought to permit the correction of any kind of error or mistake if it can be done without injustice to the other party so that the real matter in controversy may be determined.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 40">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 40">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 40">application for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 40">respondent engaged in comparative advertising</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1986] FCA 40">obligation to ensure accuracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 40">whether serious question to be tried as to whether advertising misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1986] FCA 40">consideration of balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement claimed to contravene the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused.  pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">amendment of statement of claim.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appeal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion under s.50 considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">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="cp7.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement alleged to contravene s. 45</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45a.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon undertakings given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 17 , 50 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">application to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">leave to amend refused by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">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="cp7.22">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="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">passing on of information supplied by someone else</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">whether company adopts statements of another through display on website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">where company neither expressly adopts nor expressly disclaims those statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">held an objective assessment should be made of whether the company adopts such statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">held in absence of own language, company cannot have been taken to have adopted the statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 51a, 52 and 53</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">application to re-open case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">leave to re-open case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">principles involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">circumstances when leave should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">leave to re-open case granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">material witness not reasonably available to party at closure of case</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 313" id="cs0">Not all of Granitgard's allegations formed part of its case as originally formulated (qv Granitgard Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 590 v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd ACN 093 837 337 [2008] FCA 55). Rather, Granitgard sought to amend its case shortly prior to the originally allocated, June 2008 trial dates. In an application brought on while I was on leave it persuaded another judge, in the circumstances, to grant it leave further to amend its statement of claim and to vacate those trial dates (qv Granitgard Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 590 v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd ACN 093 837 337 [2008] FCA 865 A yet further amendment of Termicide's case was later made after a grant of leave by me in October 2008). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 82" id="cs1">The application is made at a time when both the case for Granitgard and the case for the Respondent, hereafter Termicide, have each closed. Submissions in the case are yet to be made and, obviously enough, judgment has not yet been given. The proceedings were commenced on 19 September 2007. In February last year, a trial was fixed to commence on 23 June. Interlocutory directions were made, which required Granitgard to file its evidence in chief by 18 April 2008, in anticipation of the trial then occurring in June. On 10 June, Granitgard made application for the trial dates to be vacated. That proved necessary, in light of a proposal which Granitgard had made to amend its statement of claim. That application was successful: see Granitgard Proprietary Limited v Termicide Pest Control Proprietary Limited [2008] FCA 865 (Collier J). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 931">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 931">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 931">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 931">interlocutory dismissal of show cause application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 931">no arguable case.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">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="cp1.3">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="cp1.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">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="cp1.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">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="cp1.9">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="cp1.10">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="cp1.11">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="cp1.12">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="cp1.13">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="cp1.14">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>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">jackamarra v krakouer  anor  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">extension of time to enter an appeal for hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">appeal lodged within time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">procedural default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">assessment of merits in exercise of discretion to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">whether appeal is "arguable" or "fairly arguable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">determination of "real prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">availability of evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">application for an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">magistrate finds breach of s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">declines relief by reason of delay in excess of 5 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">further delay in seeking to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">special reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">extension of time sought after approximately 1 year's delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">proposal to adduce fresh evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 93">extension refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 93" id="cs0">An extension of time may be granted where an applicant can establish " special reasons ": Federal Court Rules 1979 (Cth) O 52 r 15(2). The discretion to extend time is given for the purpose of enabling the Court to do justice between the parties: WAAD v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCAFC 399 at [7] ; Applicant S1138 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1052 at [11] ; SZKJV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 831 at [10] . An applicant, it has been said, must advance a reason to take " the case out of the ordinary ": Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 at 195. The rule confers " a flexible discretionary power ": (1986) 12 FCR 187 at 195. Even where " special reasons " can be established, the Court thus retains a discretion to grant or refuse the extension sought: Kordatos v Sweeney [2004] FCA 1487 at [17] per Cooper J. So much is apparent from the terms of r 15(2) itself --- "... the Court or a Judge for special reasons may at any time... ".  Of relevance to the exercise of the discretion, but never conclusive, is the fact that many applicants seeking to challenge adverse decisions made under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) are not fluent in English and frequently are not represented by legal advisers: cf Vranic v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink [2004] FCA 1511. And when represented by (for example) counsel appearing on a pro bono basis, the Court is considerably benefited: SZKJV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 831 at [13] to [14]. Also of relevance, but again not conclusive, may be the financial circumstances confronting an applicant: cf QAAH v Minister for Immigration Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 9 at [7] ; SZKDC v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 164 at [12] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1093" id="cs1">25 I interpolate that the competing injustice or prejudice caused to the parties has been stated as an important consideration in a number of decisions including: WAAD (see [23] above), SZKJV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 831 (' SZKJV') at [12] per Jacobson J and Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27 ; (1998) 195 CLR 516 (' Jackamarra ') at [66.4] per Kirby J. Further, another aspect that has some bearing on the issue is whether the respondent's substantive rights are put at risk by the grant of leave: see Jackamarra at [7] per Brennan CJ and McHugh J.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>