Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">stuart v kirkland-veenstra   torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">where mental health act 1986 (vic), s 10 empowered police to apprehend person who "appears to be mentally ill" if reasonable grounds for believing that person had recently attempted suicide or likely to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">where police came upon man who appeared to have been contemplating suicide but showed no sign of mental illness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">interaction of common law and relationship established by s 10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">whether duty of care to prevent foreseeable harm to man at own hand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relevance of conditions engaging exercise of statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relevance of fact that duty alleged is duty to protect person from self-harm</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relevance of general rule against duty to rescue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relevance of vulnerability of particular class of persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relevance of control over source of risk to persons.   torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">where duty alleged to arise in context of power conferred by mental health act 1986 , s 10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">whether preconditions to existence of power established on facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">whether common law duty could exist in absence of relevant power.   torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">breach of statutory duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relevance as alternative to action alleging breach of common law duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">principles relevant to determining legislative intention that cause of action be available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relevance of legislative provision for special measures to protect identifiable class of persons or property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">whether existence of discretion to exercise power inconsistent with existence of statutory duty.   statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">whether person who has attempted suicide to be equated with person "mentally ill"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">relationship between attempted suicide and mental illness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2009] HCA 15">understanding at common law of relationship between suicide and mental illness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">motions for dismissal of proceedings pursuant to federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">alternatively for statement of claim to be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">federal court rules order 11 rule 16 or order 20 rule 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">construction of option in contract to lease and subsequent deed of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">consideration of evidence of extrinsic material in aid of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">common intention unilateral mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">equitable estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">breach of warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 51aa and 51ac of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 6(3) and 52 trade practices act and s 10 fair trading act 1987 (wa).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">witness immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">immunity where conduct sufficiently connected and preparatory to proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">statutory analyst undertook analysis of substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">s 37a poisons and therapeutic goods act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">certificate of analysis issued under drug misuse and trafficking act s 43</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">certificate issued for criminal prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">analyst manipulated testing of substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">plaintiff argued testing undertaken at investigative phase not forensic phase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">whether analyst protected by principle of witness immunity evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">witness immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">underlying rationale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">ultimate consideration finality of judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">proceedings would require retrial of evidence of analyst</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">whether inconsistent with finality of judgment vicarious liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">immunity of wrongdoer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">employer seeking to rely on immunity of employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">whether immunity extends to protect a person who is otherwise vicariously liable negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">imposition of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">court would not ordinarily impose duty of care where duty would impose conflicting claims or obligations and indeterminacy of liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">analyst appointed by minister under statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">proof of substance provided by analyst fundamental to prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">whether trial judge erred in finding arguable case that duty of care existedtrade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">issue of statutory certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">certificate issued to prosecuting authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">certificate certified content of substance for purposes of criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.28">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">content of certificate related to witness' evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.29">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">certificate issued for fee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.30">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">whether certificate issued in trade or commerceprocedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.31">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.32">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 370">inappropriate where real question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">order sought for summary judgment in relation to appellant's notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">whether appellant has a reasonable prospect of success in the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">summary judgment granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 923">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">commissioner published guidelines to effect that he would concede confidentiality in respect of, and deny himself access to, certain advising papers of external accountants, unless he or an officer of a certain rank of the australian taxation office ("ato") should decide that there were "exceptional circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">in proceedings before the court, being appeals under part ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth), taxpayers gave discovery, and claimed that certain documents discovered were covered by the "accountants' concession" within the guidelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">officer of appropriate rank within the ato decided that there were exceptional circumstances, and approved of access to the documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">different ato officer caused a notice to produce the documents to issue to taxpayers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">taxpayers issued this present proceeding challenging the senior officer's decision allowing access, under s 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) ("ad(jr) act") and under s 39b(1) and (1a) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) (" judiciary act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">application for summary dismissal of proceeding based on suggested incompetency of present application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether decision to allow access was a "decision of an administrative character made ... under an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether guidelines were "an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">scope of "matter ... arising under any laws made by the parliament" within s 39b(1a)(c) of judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">test for summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">meaning of "no reasonable prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">the two ministers and the commonwealth, by their present application to secure a "summary judgment", seek to have these proceedings stopped at this point as a matter of law, without the need to look at the evidence. they say that, even assuming that the allegations in mr hicks' claim are accepted, there is no reasonable prospect of success. part of the application by the ministers and the commonwealth for summary judgment is on the basis that this court cannot enter into a consideration of a case which may result in a finding that an action of a state other than australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">here, the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">is unlawful. they say that there are no proper standards by which the court can resolve the issues raised by mr hicks because delicate questions of diplomatic negotiation between australia and the united states are involved and a finding by a court may impact on these relations.the question of mr hicks' internment is said to be "political" in nature and is one concerning foreign relations and these are areas into which the court should not intrude because the decision will involve standards which are "non-justiciable" and which a court cannot properly apply.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">roads and traffic authority of nsw v dederer  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">scope of duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">roads authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">the first respondent was injured after jumping into shallow water from a bridge erected by the appellant's predecessor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">whether the scope of the appellant's duty of care encompassed the circumstances in which the first respondent was injured</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">distinction between the exercise of reasonable care and the prevention of harm.  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">standard of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">prospective assessment of breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">characterisation of relevant risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">assessment of probability of risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">assessment of gravity of risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">assessment of practicability of precautions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">relevance of voluntary conduct and obviousness of risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">relevance of "allurement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">whether wyong shire council v shirt [1980] hca 12 ; (1980) 146 clr 40 was correctly applied.  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">contributory negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">reduction of damages by court of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">whether court of appeal erred in disturbing trial judge's assessment.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">limitations on appellate review of findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">meaning of "concurrent findings of fact".  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">sanderson orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[2007] HCA 42">circumstances in which it is appropriate to make a sanderson order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application to strike out statement of claim and cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">proper approach to meaning of "reasonable prospect of success" in s 31a of the federal court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">requirement of actual knowledge of falsity of representation for accessory liability under s 75b of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application allowed in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">summary dismissal of proceedings against certain respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application of s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">inapplicability to applications to strike out parts of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">nature of "reasonable prospect" assessment required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit of respondents denying relevant knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit unanswered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">generality of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit material insufficient to demonstrate no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">motion for summary dismissal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 898">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 898">claims against secretary of department of employment and workplace relations alleging criminal offences and civil liability to pay social security benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1528">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1528">costs claimed against legal practitioners for alleged incompetence in propounding a notice of motion found by a full court not to be within the jurisdiction of the court. jurisdiction of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1528">contract to enforce a settlement of a proceeding within the jurisdiction of the court being a contract between the same parties to the original proceeding can be enforced in this court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1528">whether as part of the original matter or, if a separate matter as a matter arising under a law of the parliament under s 39b(1a)(c) of the judiciary act as undertakings to the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1528">enforcement of undertakings to the court by procedure short of contempt.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">land compulsorily acquired</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">obligation by acquiring authority to comply with s.35(3) of subdivision act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">must submit plan of subdivision. judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">seeking mandamus-type order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">limited jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">not an appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">must establish failure to perform duty in accordance with the law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">court does not substitute its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">requirement to act bona fide and to consider interests of the body affected by decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">body affected wanted different subdivision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">authority considered subdivision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">rejected it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[2005] VSC 39">failed to prove improper exercise of decision-making authority.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">british american tobacco australia ltd v western australia  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">exclusive powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">state law imposing tobacco wholesalers' and retailers' licence fee in contravention of s 90, constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">claim against state for money had and received to the use of taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">whether action arises under the constitution or involves its interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">constitution , s 76(i).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">exclusive powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">state law imposing tobacco wholesalers' and retailers' licence fee in contravention of s 90 , constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">claim against state for money had and received to the use of taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">right to proceed against state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">state laws imposing conditions on right of action against state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">whether state laws apply of their own force</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">whether state laws apply pursuant to s 64 or s 79 , judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">crown suits act 1947 (wa), ss 5 , 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 47">limitation act 1935 (wa), s 47a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">graham barclay oysters pty ltd v ryan  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">local authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">harvesting of contaminated oysters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oysters causing hepatitis a infection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">knowledge of risk on part of officers of the authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure by the authority to exercise statutory powers to control water pollution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">reasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">class to whom duty owed when exercising power to control pollution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether minimisation of pollution and thus risk of viral contamination would have prevented infection.   negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oyster grower and distributor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">breach of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">harvesting of contaminated oysters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oysters causing hepatitis a infection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure to refrain from harvesting and selling oysters during relevant period.  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">the state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">harvesting of contaminated oysters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">oysters causing hepatitis a infection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">knowledge of risk on part of officers of the state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure to exercise general statutory powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">relevance of state "control" of industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">reasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">justiciability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">failure to exercise specific statutory power of closure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether power enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">class to whom duty owed when exercising power.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">representative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.30">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">declaration of legal right concerning individual entitlement to recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.31">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether the making of such a declaration inappropriate or beyond power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.32">cited from="[2002] HCA 54">whether statute and nature of representative proceeding sustain a declaratory order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">civil aviation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">stay application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">suspension of pilot's licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">breaches of civil aviation act and civil aviation regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">whether hearing nugatory if no stay granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">whether stay is desirable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">air safety issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">stay refused.  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">s 41(2)  civil aviation act 1998 ss 9, 9a, 20a  civil aviation regulations 1998</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[2002] AATA 196">regs 157, 268, 269</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[2001] WASCA 402">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[2001] WASCA 402">appeal against refusal of extension of time to issue writ claiming damages for personal injuries against public authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[2001] WASCA 402">validity of writ issued without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[2001] WASCA 402">whether order granting leave can be made retrospectively or nunc pro tunc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[2001] WASCA 402">whether declaration validating writ already issued can be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[2001] WASCA 402">criteria for grant of leave discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[2001] WASCA 402">principles governing exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">sullivan v moody  thompson v connon  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">appellants suspected of sexually abusing their children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">alleged negligence of respondents in investigating and reporting on allegations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">appellants claimed that they suffered shock, distress, psychiatric injury, and consequential personal and financial loss as a result of the accusations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">whether medical practitioners, social workers and departmental officers involved in investigating and reporting upon allegations of child sexual abuse owe a duty of care to suspects.  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">proximity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 59">inapplicability of the caparo test in australia.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">whether leave should be given to use discovered document in subsequent proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">implied undertaking against collateral use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">appropriate test for the grant of leave to make use of discovered document in subsequent proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">whether incorrect test applied in court belowpractice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">implied undertaking against collateral use of discovered document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[2000] WASCA 377">appropriate test for the grant of leave to make use of discovered document in subsequent proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">austral pacific group limited v airservices australia  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">action by employee against appliance manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">manufacturer issued third party proceedings against commonwealth authority employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">federal jurisdiction attracted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">application by commonwealth authority to strike out manufacturer's third party notice against it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether commonwealth authority was liable as a joint tortfeasor "in respect of the same damage" as manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether employee's non-compliance with the requirement of election in s 45 of the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) ever subjected the commonwealth authority to liability to the employee.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether s 64 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) operated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether s 79 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) "picked up" ss 6 and 7 of the law reform act 1995 (q)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether ss 44 or 45 of the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) "otherwise provided" within the meaning of s 79 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[2000] WASC 50">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[2000] WASC 50">application to release a party from implied undertaking not to use documents discovered in one action for any other purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[2000] WASC 50">when undertaking released</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[2000] WASC 50">one document subject of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">pyrenees shire council v william ross day  anor  eskimo amber pty ltd  ors v pyrenees shire council  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">omission by public authority to exercise statutory powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">absence of statutory duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">general reliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">reasonable foreseeability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">proximity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">policy considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">public duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">whether municipal council under a public or common law duty to neighbouring property owners to take positive action to exercise its discretionary powers to notify of or remove fire-risks of which it is aware in order to prevent injury or property damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 3">whether such duties are owed to occupiers.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">acquisition on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">injured worker entitled to compensation and tight of action for damages at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">statutory removal of right of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">whether acquisition of property other than on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xxxi)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth), s. 44.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">police (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">action against police officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">statutory protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">act in carrying provisions of statute into effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">act in pursuance or execution or intended execution of public duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">limitation act 1935 (wa), s. 47a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">police act 1892 (wa), s. 138</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">interpretation act 1918 (wa), s. 47, par. h, 2nd sched.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">detention in custody pending deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">arrest and detention of illegal entrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">purpose of deportation order to ensure availability of deportee's evidence in criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">invalidity of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">whether continued detention justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">migration act 1958 (cth), s. 39.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">order of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">power to set aside decision and declare rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">deportation order set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.12">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">whether applicant entitled to declaration that detention unlawful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.13">cited from="[1989] HCA 54">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">public authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">foreseeability and proximity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">reliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">character of loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">municipal council regulating construction of buildings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">whether duty to ensure construction in accordance with statute and plans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">power to inspect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">negligence in inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">failure of subsequent purchaser to inquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">local government act 1919 (n.s.w.), pt xi.  local government (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">building control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">inadequate footings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">whether negligence in inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.15">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">failure of subsequent purchaser to obtain certificate of compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.16">cited from="[1985] HCA 41">local government act 1919 (n.s.w.), pt xi.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">appeal from state supreme court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">matter arising under law made by commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">whether court exercising federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">import licences issued under customs (import licensing) regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">agreement relating to benefit of licensed quota</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">action to enforce agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs act 1901 (cth), s. 50(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs (import licensing) regulations, reg. 7,9,16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12), s. 76(ii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">judiciary act 1901 (cth), s. 39.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">suit to which commonwealth a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">commonwealth statute requiring rights of commonwealth to be as nearly as possible the same as in a suit between subject and subject</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">whether substantive rights affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.6">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">state statute of limitations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.7">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">whether commonwealth suit statute-barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.8">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 75 (iii), 78</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.9">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.10">cited from="[1977] HCA 63">limitation act, 1969 (n.s.w.) ss. 14 (1) (a), 63 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">freedom of interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">prohibition of sale of potatoes by unregistered grower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether prohibition valid against unregistered grower who sells potatoes interstate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether registration provisions regulatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">provision for exaction of contributions from registered growers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether burden on interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">effect upon validity of requirements for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12) s. 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.10">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">potato marketing act, 1948-1973 (s.a.), ss. 12, 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.11">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">acts interpretation act, 1915 (s.a.), as amended, s. 22a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">between residents of different states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">commenced in new south wales registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">cause of action arising in queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">queensland statute of limitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">whether bar to maintenance of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 118</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">judiciary act 1903-1960 (cth), ss. 79, 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 28">the law reform (limitation of actions) act of 1956 (q.), s. 5.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">resumption and acquisition of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">resumption under statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">municipal council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">town-planning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">closing of "unnecessary" road</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">opening of new road</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">"improvement and embellishment of area"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">acquisition of more land than necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.8">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">proposed resale of excess land at profit to reduce cost of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.9">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">improper purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.10">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">damage to owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.11">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.12">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">local government act 1919-1948 (n.s.w.) (no. 41 of 1919</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.13">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">no. 44 of 1948), ss. 235, 321 (d), 322, 532, 535, 536</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.14">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">public roads act 1902-1937 (no. 95 of 1902</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.15">cited from="[1950] HCA 33">no. 35 of 1937), s. 20 (2) (a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">exemption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">"public authority constituted under any . . . state act"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">community hotel conducted by body incorporated under and regulated by state acts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">committee of management elected by persons on state electoral roll for district</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">income tax assessment act 1936-1947 (no. 27 of 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 7">no. 63 of 1947), s. 23 (d).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 62">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 62">inconsistency of state and commonwealth laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 62">"laws of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 62">covering the field  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 62">writs of certiorari and prohibition sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 62">a state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 62">an injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 994">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 994">application for extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment refusing further amendments to statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 994">whether decision attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by a full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 994">numerous attempts to replead statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 994">arguable merits in pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 994">limited leave granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 514">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 514">parties' success on issues decided evenly balanced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 514">no order as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">limitation act 1935 (wa) s 47a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">whether appropriate to grant leave to file proposed proceeding under s 47a(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">delay of nearly three years between applicants' solicitor's realization that applicants had potential claim against respondents and filing of application seeking leave not occasioned by mistake or reasonable cause where delay attributed to solicitor's unawareness of s 47a and its potential application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">solicitor's ignorance of statute's existence not reasonable cause or "mistake" in the relevant sense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">existence of pre-application discovery proceeding insufficient explanation for delay under the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">absence of material prejudice to potential respondents not established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">weakness of proposed causes of action weighed in favour of denying leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">leave not appropriate  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">declaratory relief inappropriate in the circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">27 april 2010  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">whether application seeking leave under s 47a(3) of limitation act 1935 (wa) to bring a proceeding or alternatively a declaration as to the inapplicability of s 47a enlivened federal court's jurisdiction under judiciary act 1903 (cth) s 39b(1a)(c) though proceeding was not formally instituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where application and accompanying affidavit showed that applicants wanted to bring the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where proposed statement of claim exhibited to affidavit disclosed a federal matter arising under federal statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where applicants required to seek leave before bringing proposed proceeding assuming limitation act applied because leave could not be granted retrospectively</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">federal jurisdiction enlivened in the absence of an initiating process where vindication of rights under federal statute depends or may depend on the resolution of a prior preliminary application for leave under the limitation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">court had jurisdiction over application as incidental to exercise of judicial power over federal matter  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">whether applicants' substantive claims disclosed a federal matter arising under federal statute within judiciary act 1903 (cth) s 39b(1a)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where substantive claims included claims for violation of rights and privileges conferred on applicants under the civil aviation act 1988 (cth) and/or related regulations and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims "arose under" federal statutory law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims were not made for purpose of fabricating jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">non-federal claims formed part of same "matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims disclosed a federal matter attracting federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 62" id="cs0">That Act established CASA and prescribed in s 9 its functions, including in part as at 2004 the following:

 CASA's functions
 (1) CASA has the function of conducting the safety regulation of the following, in accordance with this Act, and the regulations:

 (a) civil air operations in Australian territory;
 (b) the operation of Australian aircraft outside Australian territory;
 by means that include the following:
 (c) developing and promulgating appropriate, clear and concise aviation safety standards;
 (d) developing effective enforcement strategies to secure compliance with aviation safety standards;
 (e) issuing certificates, licences, registrations and permits;
 (f) conducting comprehensive aviation industry surveillance, including assessment of safety-related decisions taken by industry management at all levels for their impact on aviation safety;
 (g) conducting regular reviews of the system of civil aviation safety in order to monitor the safety performance of the aviation industry, to identify safety-related trends and risk factors and to promote the development and improvement of the system;
 (h) conducting regular and timely assessment of international safety developments.

 (2) CASA also has the following safety-related functions:

 (a) encouraging a greater acceptance by the aviation industry of its obligation to maintain high standards of aviation safety, through:

 (i) comprehensive safety education and training programs; and
 (ii) accurate and timely aviation safety advice; and
 (iii) fostering an awareness in industry management, and within the community generally, of the importance of aviation safety and compliance with relevant legislation;

 (b) promoting full and effective consultation and communication with all interested parties on aviation safety issues.

In exercising its powers and performing its functions CASA is directed to " regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration " (s 9A(1)) and must perform its functions " in a manner consistent with the obligations of Australia under the Chicago Convention " (s 11): cf. Hevi Lift (PNG) Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (1997) 79 FCR 19 at 21. " There is little doubt ", it has been said, " that the safety of air navigation is the most important consideration under the [Act]" : Repacholi Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2009] FCA 1487 at [33] per McKerracher J. This concern, His Honour there further said " is also reflected under subsidiary provisions ". </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 994" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 514" id="cs2">The applicants filed an application in this proceeding on 16 September 2009, seeking a declaration that s 47A of the Limitation Act 1935 (WA) did not apply to a proceeding that the applicants proposed to bring against the respondents and, in the alternative, a grant of leave under s 47A(3) of that Act for the applicants to bring the proposed proceeding. On 20 October 2009, the respondents filed a notice of motion in which, amongst other things, they challenged the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the applicants' application. (The motion also contemplated a stay, but the basis for this fell away with the delivery of McKerracher J's judgment in Repacholi Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2009] FCA 1487 ; (2009) 263 ALR 93. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 404" id="cs3">The following discussion is predicated on the assumption that s 47A of the Limitation Act applies to the action that the applicants wish to bring: compare Repacholi Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2009] FCA 1487 ; (2009) 263 ALR 93 (' Repacholi ') at 123 [140]. Under s 47A(3) , the Court may grant leave (with or without conditions) if it thinks it just where it considers that:
(1) the delay was occasioned by mistake; or

(2) the delay was occasioned by any other reasonable cause; or

(3) the prospective defendant is not materially prejudiced in its defence or otherwise by the delay. If the Court is satisfied of any of (1), (2) or (3), then the Court may grant leave if it considers it just to do so: see Matheson at 274 [18]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 367" id="cs4">For the reasons stated below, I conclude that the Court has jurisdiction and would dismiss the respondents' motion. The respondents' alternative position that the case be stayed pending delivery of judgment in Federal Court proceeding WAD 51 of 2009 was overtaken by the delivery of judgment: see Repacholi Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2009] FCA 1487 ; (2009) 263 ALR 93 (' Repacholi '). The respondents' motion and the applicants' application
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 41 Operation and implementation of a decision that is subject to review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 9 Limitation of jurisdiction of State courts</title>
<title id="l5">AIR NAVIGATION ACT 1920 </title>
<title id="l6">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 5 General territorial application of Act</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 187 Directors of wholly-owned subsidiaries</title>
<title id="l10">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l11">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 3A Main object of this Act</title>
<title id="l12">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 8 Establishment of CASA</title>
<title id="l13">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 9 CASA's functions</title>
<title id="l14">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 9A Performance of functions</title>
<title id="l15">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 27 AOCs</title>
<title id="l16">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 28BA General conditions</title>
<title id="l17">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 28BB CASA may impose and vary AOC conditions</title>
<title id="l18">CIVIL AVIATION ACT 1988 - SECT 28BF Organisation, personnel etc.</title>
<title id="l19">COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l20">COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES ACT 1997 - SECT 23 Good faith--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l21">CIVIL AVIATION (CARRIERS' LIABILITY) ACT 1959 </title>
<title id="l22">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l23">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l24">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l25">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 32A State Supreme Courts invested with jurisdiction in Chambers</title>
<title id="l26">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l27">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 38 Matters in which jurisdiction of High Court exclusive</title>
<title id="l28">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l29">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 64 Rights of parties</title>
<title id="l30">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 79 State or Territory laws to govern where applicable</title>
<title id="l31">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l32">REMUNERATION TRIBUNAL ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l33">CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 </title>
<title id="l34">CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY REGULATIONS 1998 </title>
<title id="l35">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l36">CROWN SUITS ACT 1947 </title>
<title id="l37">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l38">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 - SECT 5 </title>
<title id="l39">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l40">LIMITATION ACT 1935 </title>
<title id="l41">LIMITATION ACT 1935 - SECT 3 </title>
<title id="l42">LIMITATION ACT 1935 - SECT 47A </title>
<title id="l43">LIMITATION ACT 2005 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 443">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 443">application to reinstate pursuant to rule 16.05(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 443">application to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 443">consideration of s.40(1)(g) bankruptcy act 1966 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] VSC 111">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] VSC 111">magistrates' court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] VSC 111">issue of possible bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] VSC 111">not initially pursued by party affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] VSC 111">raised on the following day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] VSC 111">magistrate withdrew</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] VSC 111">party objecting ordered to pay costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 412">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 412">whether debtor should pay petitioner's cost where debt paid and petition dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 412">offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 412">whether refusal of debtor's offer was reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 412">debtor entitled to costs only up until when offer was refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 493">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 493">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 493">instalment order made on judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 493">whether hearing of creditor's petition should be adjourned</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 412" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 493" id="cs1">The cost judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court of Victoria on 3 April 2009: Slaveski v Rotstein  Associates Pty Ltd [2009] VSC 111. Slaveski applied to set aside the bankruptcy notice but that application was dismissed on 17 November 2008 by Registrar Luxton. An application by Slaveski to set aside that dismissal was rejected by Burchardt FM on 6 May 2009: Slaveski v Rotstein  Associates [2009] FMCA 443. An appeal from the decision of Burchardt FM was dismissed by Marshall J on 7 December 2009: Slaveski
 v Rotstein  Associates Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1428. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 40 Acts of bankruptcy</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 41 Bankruptcy notices</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">implied waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">whereprivilege-holder puts his or her state of mind in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">whether privilege-holder had put his state of mind in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">test of waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">letter conveying substance and effect of legal advice to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">inconsistency between disclosure and confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">waiver imputed where final conclusion of legal advice stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">voluntary disclosure of the conclusion of legal advice waives privilege in relation to undisclosed reasons for conclusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">disclosure of one conclusion does not necessarily waive privilege in relation to undisclosed conclusions  freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents privileged from production on grounds of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">principles relating to waiver of privilege in documents otherwise exempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">decision as to waiver involved an error on a question of law as to correct application of test for waiver of privilege freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">powers of tribunal under freedom of information act 1982 (cth) s 58</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal empowered to review any decision made by an agency or minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal stands in shoes of relevant agency or minister for purpose of administrative review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">power of tribunal to review decision of agency or minister not severable from power to determine threshold questions in relation to reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal not empowered to review decision to claim exemption from disclosure on grounds of privilege without reviewing validity of privilege claim itself freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents privileged from production on grounds of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents containing privileged matter not exempt if used by relevant agency to determine entitlements or obligations of persons generally under an enactment or scheme administered by that agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">legal advice provided in relation to particular case may fall within this category in some circumstances administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">limits upon power of court on appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">mann v carnell  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">loss of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">waiver by disclosure to third party.  australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">separation of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">representative government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">nature of relationship between the act legislative assembly and the act executive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">(defendant) file no: 5708/06 division: trial division proceeding: application originating court: supreme court, brisbane delivered on: 29 october 2007 delivered at: supreme court, brisbane hearing date: 31 may 2007 judge: douglas j order: paragraph 2 of the application is dismissed. order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to para. 2 of the application.  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">discovery and interrogatories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">discovery and inspection of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">production and inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">grounds for resisting production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">whether privilege waived by a note in company reports to the asx that the company has received legal advice that it has no liability whatsoever in respect of proceedings brought against it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">where report was designed to clarify why the company was treating the claim against it as a contingent liability rather than a provision or liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">whether inconsistent with the confidentiality which the privilege is intended to protect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">whether the advice was relevant to the issues in the litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2007] QSC 309">whether other documents relevant to the preparation of the advice where privileged evidence act 1995 (nsw) s. 122(2)  attorney-general (nt) v maurice [1986] hca 80; [1986] hca 80 ; (1986) 161 clr 475 , considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2007] NSWLEC 141">practice and procedure :</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2007] NSWLEC 141">subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2007] NSWLEC 141">whether document produced serves a legitimate forensic purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2007] NSWLEC 141">whether waiver of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1234">i have inspected the six documents that were said to relate to the iron filings claim. my inspection of awb's documents revealed a further four documents that fall within this category and are still the subject of a privilege claim. i am satisfied that these 10 documents are not privileged, as the documents were brought into existence in furtherance of an improper and dishonest purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1234">inflating the prices of contracts a1670 and a1680 so as to extract payments out of the united nations' escrow account that would then be utilised, in part, to satisfy a compensation claim by gbi. the evidence establishes to the requisite standard that the transaction was deliberately and dishonestly structured by awb and gbi so as to misrepresent the true nature and purpose of the trucking fees and to work a trickery on the united nations. it would be contrary to public policy for the privilege to enure in communications of this kind.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1999">i have inspected the six documents that were said to relate to the iron filings claim. my inspection of awb's documents revealed a further four documents that fall within this category and are still the subject of a privilege claim. i am satisfied that these 10 documents are not privileged, as the documents were brought into existence in furtherance of an improper and dishonest purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1999">inflating the prices of contracts a1670 and a1680 so as to extract payments out of the united nations' escrow account that would then be utilised, in part, to satisfy a compensation claim by gbi. the evidence establishes to the requisite standard that the transaction was deliberately and dishonestly structured by awb and gbi so as to misrepresent the true nature and purpose of the trucking fees and to work a trickery on the united nations. it would be contrary to public policy for the privilege to enure in communications of this kind.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 571">the case concerns a document entitled 'cole inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 571">draft statement of contrition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 571">andrew lindberg.' the document became exhibit 665 in the commission of inquiry which is being conducted by commissioner cole ('the inquiry') under the royal commissions act 1902 ('rca').</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 707">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 707">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 707">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 707">where document recording conclusion stated in legal advice found to waive privilege in the advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 707">whether legal advice dealt with discrete issues in which privilege is not waived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 707">privilege upheld in part</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 910" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2007] QSC 309" id="cs1">[3]
 [12] In Secretary to the Department of Justice v Osland [2007] VSCA 96 at [29] - [42], however, the Victorian Court of Appeal criticised the application of those statements by his Honour as if they constituted rules of general application.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] VSCA 96" id="cs2">If fairness has a role to play it seems to me that the relevant unfairness arises from the inconsistency. It is unfair in this sense to permit Multiemedia to cast aside confidentiality of the advice in making the statement to the world at large so as to explain or justify its position and to then insist upon confidentiality when inspection is sought of an otherwise discoverable document. " [54]

 40 In 2006, Sackville J in Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd [55] applied what he described as "the principle stated in Bennett" , citing the statement by Gyles J that the disclosure of the conclusion of legal advice amounted to waiver in respect of the whole advice. 41 Reference should also be made to the following statement by Young J in AWB Limited v Cole (No 5) , [56] a judgment handed down after the conclusion of argument in this appeal. After a review of the authorities, his Honour said:

 "AWB submitted that the reasoning in Bennett was unsound, particularly the holding that the disclosure of the conclusion stated in legal advice will amount to a waiver of the whole of the advice.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] NSWLEC 141" id="cs3">15 Unless there is waiver the Council is entitled to claim privilege over the legal advice. The fact these are Class 1 proceedings does not suggest any different approach to the issue of waiver should be adopted. The issue as identified in Mann v Carnell is whether there is inconsistency between the maintenance of the confidentiality and the Council's conduct. The Applicant argued there had been a waiver of privilege because the Council's letter seeking advice was discovered and the letter of 7 November 2006 discloses the substance of the advice, relying on Seven Network Limited v News Limited (No 12 ) [2006] FCA 348 and Bennett v Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Customs Service [2004] FCAFC 237 ; (2004) 140 FCR 101. In Bennett at [62] Gyles J considered that the primary judge was in error where he:
 drew a distinction between the conclusion expressed in legal advice on the one hand and the reasons for that conclusion on the other, and took the view that disclosure of the conclusion does not involve disclosure of the reasons". At [65] his Honour held that "the voluntary disclosure of the gist or conclusion of the legal advice amounts to waiver in respect of the whole of the advice. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1234" id="cs4">The substance or content of the advice is not disclosed with specificity or clarity. Questions of waiver are matters of fact and degree and, in this instance, I am not persuaded that the conduct, assertions or admissible evidence are sufficient to warrant the necessary implication that legal professional privilege has been waived. '

 The principles discussed in Bennett were applied in Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 12 ) [2006] FCA 348. The issue was whether a statement in a discovered document that '[o]ur legal advice is that the risk of damages being awarded against Optus is low' had the consequence of waiving privilege in the legal advice that it referred to. Sackville J held that it did; the statement voluntarily disclosed the gist or conclusion of the legal advice: at [12].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1999" id="cs5">The principles discussed in Bennett were applied in Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 12 ) [2006] FCA 348. The issue was whether a statement in a discovered document that '[o]ur legal advice is that the risk of damages being awarded against Optus is low' had the consequence of waiving privilege in the legal advice that it referred to. Sackville J held that it did; the statement voluntarily disclosed the gist or conclusion of the legal advice: at [12]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 571" id="cs6">138 Bennett has been followed by Sundberg J in Rio Tinto Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2005] FCA 1336 ; (2005) 224 ALR 299 at 312-313 [49] - [53] , and Sackville J in Seven Network Limited v News Limited (No 12) [2006] FCA 348: see also Switchcorp Pty Ltd v Multiemedia Ltd [2005] VSC 425. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 707" id="cs7">1 This is an application by the applicants in the substantive proceedings which are currently part heard before Sackville J for access to the parts of a letter dated 18 February 2002 from Baker  McKenzie to the sixteenth respondent, Optus Vision Pty Limited, which has been produced in redacted form as answering the legal advice the subject of the waiver found by his Honour ( Seven Network Limited v News Limited (No 12) [2006] FCA 348 at [20] ). The sixteenth respondent is Optus Vision Pty Limited ('Optus') and the twenty second respondent is Singtel Optus Pty Limited ('Singtel').</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 122 Loss of client legal privilege: consent and related matters</title>
<title id="l2">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">whether refugee review tribunal failed to provide applicant with particulars of information that the tribunal considered would be the reason, or part of the reason for affirming decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">requirement not applicable if information "just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">whether information within exception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">tribunal required to invite applicant to appear to give evidence and present argument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">notice of hearing to be given in prescribed manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">notice deemed to have been received if so given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">notice given in prescribed manner but not received by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">whether deemed receipt provision applies only to notice and not to invitation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 151">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 151">letter notifying appellant of visa cancellation sent to "address for correspondence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 151">appellant's application for review was lodged out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 151">meaning in reg 2.55(3)(c) migration regulations 1994 (cth) of "post box address"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 151">whether failed delivery of email notification created second timetable for review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1457">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1457">failure to attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1457">appeal dismissed under s 25(2b)(bb)(ii) of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1457">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 151" id="cs0">27 It is well accepted that the modern approach to statutory interpretation is both purposive and contextual: Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AA ; CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2 ; (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408. It is a matter of no little regret that, with s 494B of the Migration Act prescribing an easily understood and intelligible regime for the giving of documents to a person, those who drafted reg 2.55 did not adhere to that template but, rather, resorted to their own idiosyncratic language --- no more so than in the use of "post box address". The reason for regret is the greater because it has occasioned an unnecessary dispute over terminology which properly construed in context means no more than "postal address for service" or "postal address for correspondence". The terms in the present context appear to be interchangeable, as is reflected both in judicial decision on the "giving" or "service" of documents and in departmental forms when considered in the context of the Act and Regulations: see e.g. SZJIP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 694 at [6] and [19]; SZITK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 164 at [3] and [7]; SZHUT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1022 at [3] and [7]; Murphy v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 657 ; (2004) 135 FCR 550 at [5] - [10], [27] and [68]-[72].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1476" id="cs1">12 Upon reading the Tribunal's decision, it is apparent that the Tribunal found the claim of the appellant to be unsubstantiated and lacking information, and that independent country information was not relied upon by the Tribunal in reaching its decision. It was because of the deficiency in the information provided that the Tribunal reached the decision adverse to the appellant. No details of the appellants alleged practise of Falun Gong was provided and the Tribunal could not be satisfied that the appellant had a well founded fear of persecution in the PRC for this reason. Where an applicant is unable to satisfy the Tribunal of the merits of its application, s 424A(1) of the Act is not enlivened: see SZEZI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1195 at [29] ; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] - [12]; SZGER v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1162 at [8] ; SZHUT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1022 at [10] ; SZCCF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1089 at [21] ; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 474 at [48] - [49].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1457" id="cs2">15 No detail was provided by the appellant concerning this alleged breach. The Tribunal's obligation pursuant to s 424A only extends to information which the Tribunal considers would be a reason, or part of a reason, for affirming the decision under review. The Tribunal's reasons confirm that it was unable to reach a decision favourable to the appellant because of the absence of information provided. Section 424A(1) does not arise in these circumstances: see SZEZI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1195 at [29] ; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] - [12]; SZGER v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1162 at [8] ; SZHUT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1022 at [10] ; SZCCF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1089 at [21] ; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 474 at [48] - [49].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 173">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 173">whether special reasons existed to support application for extension of time to file a notice of appeal under order 52 rule 15(2) of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 173">case flimsy and weak on merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 173">not appropriate to raise on application to extend time new issues not heard at trial</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 173" id="cs0">This is an application for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal under O 52 r 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules . The applicant taxpayer objected to an assessment made by the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in respect of the years of income 2005 and 2006. It brought proceedings challenging the assessment that were heard by the primary judge, who delivered a concise, closely reasoned judgment dismissing the taxpayer's challenge on 23 October 2008: Pre-Paid Professional Administration Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1580. His reasons turned on the construction of documents entered into between the taxpayer and others concerning the character in which the taxpayer held and dealt with moneys that were paid to it. The taxpayer was represented by solicitors and counsel. The hearing extended over four days in late July and early October 2008. His Honour granted an adjournment to the taxpayer of two months to enable it to meet changes which the Commissioner had made in his case. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>