Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">prompt recovery, through estimates and payment agreements, of certain amounts not remitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where commissioner empowered to make estimate of amount</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where making of estimate created liability upon company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where obligation imposed upon directors to cause company to pay estimate or enter administration or be wound up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where obligation enforced by penalty imposed upon directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">where commissioner not entitled to recover penalty unless statutory notice given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 88">whether decision to give notice reviewable under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 269">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 269">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 269">exercise of judicial discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 269">decision below granting leave to amend application and for limited discovery orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 792">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 792">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 792">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 792">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 792">objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">griffith university v tang  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">exclusion of respondent from phd candidature programme conducted by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">where appellant is a body created by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">power of appellant to function as a university and to confer higher education awards derived from statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision to which the judicial review act 1991 (q) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision made under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">relevance of nature of relationship subsisting between parties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">search warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">whether applicant failed to disclose material matters of which he was aware, or ought to have been aware</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">whether applicant made false or misleading statements to magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">whether applicant has duty to instruct magistrate on relevant law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">s.10(1) of crimes act 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">whether material in application sufficient for the purpose of s.10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1286">whether decision to issue warrant vitiated by fraud of the applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">entry into contracts without calling for tenders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether decision under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether subject to judicial review.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">telecommunications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">alleged misleading and deceptive conduct whether failure to disclose confidential negotiations was misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether statement "you are on the tender list" was in breach of s.52.  misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">whether grant of contracts without calling for tenders was a breach of s.46</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">what is the market in which the telephone directories are printed and published</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 473">was the purpose of not calling for tenders a prescribed purpose.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">to state department of fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">requiring production of fishermens' returns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">in connection with possible offences against commonwealth law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">ex parte application for warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">whether magistrate required to take into account secrecy provisions of state fisheries act , importance of maintaining confidentiality of returns and other factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">whether public interest immunity applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">whether unconstitutional interference with executive functions of the state.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">records of state government department</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">warrant under s.10 of crimes act 1914</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1992] FCA 602">whether impermissible interference with executive functions of the state.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 25">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 25">attempt to pervert course of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 25">elements of offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 25">police investigations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 25">whether part of course of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 25">frustrating or deflecting possible criminal prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 25">whether identifiable offence must be in contemplation of accused or investigators.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">access to places and documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">to require person to produce books, documents and other papers in his custody or under his control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">random audit of top hundred companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">validity of decision to seek access to premises and to require production of documents of or relating to one such company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 263 , 264</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 46">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth),s.5(1)(d),(e).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">limitation of actions (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to actions founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">onus of proving fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.  practice and procedure (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to action founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">claim outside six year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">defence that action statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">no reply alleging fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">non-appearance of defendant at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">judgment for defendant on ground that no trust established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">finding of fraud on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 125">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 125">application for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 125">decision exempt under s.13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 125">whether inherent power to order statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 125">grounds of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 125">application to be particularised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 15">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 15">search warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 15">application for review of decisions to apply for, to issue, and to execute search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 15">contended that information coercively acquired could not be put before issuing officer when applying for search warrant or that the issuing officer should have been informed that the information was coercively acquired and could not be relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 15">whether the contention (if made out) would give rise to decision reviewable under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) to apply for a search warrant on that material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 15">whether the contention (if made out) would provide ground to review decision to issue search warrant</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 15" id="cs0">In Wilhelm v McKay [2007] FCA 367 , Greenwood J refused an application to join a party to an application for an order to review certain decisions relating to the application for a search warrant under the Crimes Act . The party sought to be joined was the person who decided to apply for the search warrant. The circumstances, at least at that level of generality, appear to be the same as those applicable to the decision of the fifth "respondent" (and of the AFP and the DCT, as alleged in paras 9.8 and 9.9 of the amended application). His Honour decided that the decision to swear the affidavit in support of the application for the search warrant and to apply for it were not decisions of an administrative character made under an enactment: see s 3(1) of the ADJR Act. Counsel for Mr Nicholls did contend that the decision was plainly wrong and should not be followed: see eg Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1994) 55 FCR 233 at 255. I respectively adopt his Honour's reasons at [60] to [70]. I shall not repeat them.  As is apparent, I have assumed that a decision to provide to the Magistrate in support of the application for the search warrant information which could not lawfully be presented to him (or, somewhat more obliquely, a decision not to inform the Magistrate that information provided to him could not be relied upon by him) is a decision to which the ADJR Act may apply. That is not obviously so, for the reasons discussed in [37] above. In addition, the operative decision directly affecting the rights of Mr Nicholls is that to issue the search warrant. If that decision is not set aside, the operative decision will not have been impaired by the decision complained of itself being attacked. It is probable, in my view, that the cases discussed by Greenwood J in Wilhelm v McKay [2007] FCA 367 at [78] to [80] point to circumstances which would enliven s 5(1)(g) of the ADJR Act in relation to the decision to issue the warrant, namely that the decision to issue the warrant was induced or affected by fraud. For reasons which appear below, it is not necessary finally to decide whether that is the correct analysis of the decisions referred to. However, in considering whether to permit the amended application to be amended or read in the way which Mr Nicholls now contends, I encompass within that consideration the possibility that ground 9.4 of the amended application might be preserved so as to entertain an attack upon the validity of the decision to issue the search warrant if it were induced or affected by fraud.  The relevant question is whether, upon the proper construction of s 65 of the TAA and ss 263 and 264 of the ITAA, those provisions in their context permit or prohibit the use of information acquired under them for the purpose of applying for a search warrant under s 3E of the Crimes Act , and so for the purpose of exercising the power under s 3E. See the discussion in Wilhelm v McKay [2007] FCA 367 per Greenwood J at [78].  Is there any point of distinction? In Wilhelm v McKay [2007] FCA 367 , one contention was that the applicant for the search warrant did not disclose certain information to the Magistrate. In that case, the non-disclosure was of information which the applicant claimed should have been disclosed. At [78] to [80], Greenwood J reviewed certain authorities touching upon the validity of search warrants procured through fraud or the absence of good faith: see eg Williams v Keelty [2001] FCA 1301 ; (2001) 111 FCR 175 at 225 [238] ; Lego Australia Pty Ltd v Paraggio [1994] FCA 1286 ; (1994) 52 FCR 542. He accepted at [80] that "the fundament of the duty is a duty to act in good faith and avoid making half-truths giving rise to a misrepresentation". His Honour's focus then was upon whether the applicants in that case had demonstrated an arguable case that in swearing the affidavit in support of the application for, and in applying for, the search warrant the person seeking the search warrant had misrepresented material facts going to the exercise of the power by the Magistrate to issue the warrant. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 16 Powers of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of applications for order of review</title>
<title id="l3">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l4">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3E When search warrants can be issued</title>
<title id="l5">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3F The things that are authorised by a search warrant</title>
<title id="l6">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3G Availability of assistance and use of force in executing a warrant</title>
<title id="l7">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 6 Accessory after the fact</title>
<title id="l8">CRIMES (TAXATION OFFENCES) ACT 1980 </title>
<title id="l9">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l10">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 8 Commissioner</title>
<title id="l11">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l12">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l13">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l14">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l16">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS 1997 </title>
<title id="l17">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT REGULATIONS 1997 - REG 1 Name of Regulations [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l18">INCOME TAX REGULATIONS 1936 </title>
<title id="l19">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l20">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l21">GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY ACT 1998 </title>
<title id="l22">JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l23">SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 1953 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">total and permanent disablement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">definition in fund rules different from underlying insurance policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">member entitled under fund rules but not policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">provision in fund rules for discretionary payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">provision deleted after disabling event but before decision of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">whether provision available to supply deficiency arising from absence of insurance payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">whether unfair or unreasonable for trustee not to have made payment under discretionary payment provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">whether error of law by superannuation complaints tribunal insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">policy taken out by trustee of superannuation fund</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">policy covered total and permanent disablement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">whether member unlikely ever to engage in regular remunerative work for which he was reasonably fitted by education, training and experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">correct time for making that assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1281">whether error of law by superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 46 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from determinations of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 608">category: no</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 608" id="cs0">ASIC did not oppose the Court granting the leave sought by the Applicant, even in the absence of the conditions that it sought: see [20] above and by way of example, Searle v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2006] FCA 208. The conditions sought by ASIC were opposed by the Applicant. Some conditions in a modified form were proposed by the Applicant. It is to the conditions that I now turn. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 206G Court power to grant leave</title>
<title id="l2">Crimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001 No 120 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">judicial review of a decision by the australian prudential regulation authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">reconsideration following appeal to be conducted in light of current circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">nature of judicial discretion under s 16 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">consideration of prejudice to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">consideration of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">consideration of full merits review as a suitable alternative remedy  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">decision of the australian prudential regulation authority to disqualify a person from being or acting in various capacities pursuant to s 25a of the insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1422">appropriate methods of challenge to decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">application to strike out a document described as a notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">consideration of whether the document is a proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">consideration of an application for leave to amend the initiating proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">consideration of the relationship between the initiating document and the requirements of a document seeking an order of review for the purposes of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">consideration of an order for indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">consideration of an order pursuant to order 62 of the federal court rules that costs be payable forthwith upon determination of the quantum of the costs notwithstanding that the proceeding is not concluded.  health insurance act 1973 (cth), ss 86 , 88a , 93 , 95 , ss 97</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1372">106f , 106kd, 106l, 106sa, 106t, 106ta, 106v(1), (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">health law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">medical practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">professional services review scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">investigative referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">adjudicative referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">finding of 'inappropriate practice' on the basis of breach of 80/20 rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">whether acting director of professional services review and professional services review committee failed to ascertain which services rendered by applicant fell within terms of referrals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">whether services rendered within specified location</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">whether committee obliged to exercise investigative powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">whether committee correctly construed and applied meaning of 'exceptional circumstances'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">whether exceptional circumstances may be circumstances of an on-going nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 365">whether acting director obliged to notify applicant of his opinion that an agreement to resolve matter should only be entered into if applicant initiated discussions and acknowledged inappropriate practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">decision of magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">committal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">tender of prejudicial evidence given in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">admission of such evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">discretion to refuse relief.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1974  crimes act 1914</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">s.42.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">decision of magistrate to commit for trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">factors relevant to exercise of discretion to refuse to make an order of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 329">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth). consideration of the matters relevant to the exercise by the court of its discretion not to make orders of review upon an application to review a decision of a magistrate to commit the applicant for trial.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 254">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 254">administrative decisions (judicial review) act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 254">applicant seeking to have reviewed "decisions or conduct" of a stipendiary magistrate in committal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 254">whether the magistrate made a "decision" or "engaged in conduct" for the purpose of a "decision"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 254">whether decisions of an "administrative character"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 254">whether decisions or conduct "under an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 254">the court's discretion under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 11 Manner of making applications</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l5">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 90 Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties</title>
<title id="l6">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 93 Payment to States for five years after uniform tariffs</title>
<title id="l7">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l8">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 79A Object of this Part</title>
<title id="l9">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 81 Definitions</title>
<title id="l10">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 84 The Professional Services Review Panel</title>
<title id="l11">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 85 Deputy Directors of Professional Services Review</title>
<title id="l12">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 93 Referral to a Committee</title>
<title id="l13">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 95 Constitution of Committees</title>
<title id="l14">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 97 Meetings</title>
<title id="l15">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 98 Conduct of meetings</title>
<title id="l16">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 99 Other procedural matters relating to meetings</title>
<title id="l17">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 103 Rights of persons under review at hearings</title>
<title id="l18">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 105A Power of Committee to require the production of documents or the giving of information</title>
<title id="l19">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106 Conduct of hearings</title>
<title id="l20">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106A Evidence at hearings</title>
<title id="l21">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106B Summons to give evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l22">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106E Refusal to be sworn or to answer questions</title>
<title id="l23">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106F Protection of Committee members, representatives and witnesses at hearings</title>
<title id="l24">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106G Application of Subdivision</title>
<title id="l25">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106H Committee findings, scope of investigation etc.</title>
<title id="l26">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106K Committee may have regard to samples of services</title>
<title id="l27">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106KA Patterns of services</title>
<title id="l28">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106KC Notification by Committee to Director of matters of concern to profession</title>
<title id="l29">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106KD Preparation of draft report</title>
<title id="l30">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106L Final report of Committee</title>
<title id="l31">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106N Committee may refer material to Chief Executive Medicare if relevant offence or relevant civil contravention is suspected</title>
<title id="l32">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106Q The Determining Authority</title>
<title id="l33">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106T Draft determination</title>
<title id="l34">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106TA Final determination</title>
<title id="l35">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106V When final determinations take effect</title>
<title id="l36">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">bodruddaza v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">availability of constitutional relief in the high court's original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">a delegate of the respondent cancelled the plaintiff's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) purported to place a time limit on applications to the high court exercising its original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">the plaintiff applied for relief outside this time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a applies to the plaintiff's application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">s 51(xxxix) of the constitution conferred on parliament power to regulate procedures for seeking relief under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">to what extent this power is limited by the constitutional purposes of s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">significance of s 75(v) in the federal scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) is valid.  certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">interrelationship with s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) validly regulated the authority of the high court to grant certiorari to the plaintiff.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">the plaintiff's visa was cancelled because of a failure to meet language skills qualifications in the migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether the decision to cancel the plaintiff's visa amounted to jurisdictional error.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">presumption that words in the singular include the plural</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">item 6a31 of the migration regulations 1994 (cth) fixed on what transpired "in a test"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether presumption vitiated by the text of item 6a31 of the migration regulations .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">application for transfer to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">meaning of 'pending' application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">whether order to transfer constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">relevance of time limits of application filed in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">interest of the administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">denial of applicant's right to bring application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">meaning of 'proceedings'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">discretion of court pursuant to s.39 of the federal magistrates act 1999</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">comity between federal courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">significance of transfer power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1912">application allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 607">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 607">application for judicial review of decision of registrar of high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 607">order sought would have no utility in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 607">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 361">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 361">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 361">amendment to statement of claim administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 361">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 361">prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 361">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 51ab</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 361">exclusive jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">review of decision of immigration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">applicant incorrectly informed by officer of the tribunal that he had lost his right of review when notified of the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether applicant was notified of the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether application made to the court within 28 days of notification of the decision for the purposes of s.478 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether applicant entitled to be accurately informed of his right of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether the respondent is estopped from alleging the application was not lodged within 28 days of the notification.   statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">consideration of principles of statutory interpretation to give effect to the intention of the legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether a literal interpretation should be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether an interpretation which gives effect to and does not defeat or frustrate the manifest object or purpose of a provision must be preferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether it is an implied condition of a notification for the purposes of s.478 that it not frustrate or negate the purpose of notification.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether notification is an exercise of statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1997] FCA 70">whether power exercised for an ulterior or improper purpose.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">review of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal") decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">application for extension of time to bring proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">prejudice caused by delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">whether adjournment of tribunal's hearing owing to the applicant's ill health so brief as to amount to a breach of s.425 of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2011] FMCA 305">whether tribunal's requirement to obtain a medical certificate in seven days over the christmas period was unfair or unreasonable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">sale of industrial paint.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">associated jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">jurisdiction to determine cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">whether cross-claim is associated to main action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">cross-claim based on deed of guarantee and indemnity.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">whether cross-claim can be brought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">whether to be heard together with main action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 634">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 634">application to review a decision of a delegate of the first respondent to grant a student visa valid until a particular date and to review a decision of the migration review tribunal to affirm a later decision of a delegate to refuse to grant a student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 634">whether necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to extend the time for making judicial review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 634">whether delegate erred in specifying the date until which the visa would remain in effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 634">whether tribunal misconstrued and misapplied the law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 197">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 197">application for an extension of time to apply for review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal made in november 1998</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 197">whether necessary in the interests of the administration of justice to make such an order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 197">extension of time refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 197">application dismissed as incompetent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">proceedings irregularly commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">application for transfer to family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">meaning of 'pending' application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">whether order to transfer constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">meaning of 'proceedings'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">discretion of court pursuant to s.39 of the federal magistrates act 1999 .  jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">federal magistrates court's jurisdiction to determine whether a matter falls within its jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">jurisdiction of federal magistrates court to transfer a matter over which it has no jurisdiction to the family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">proceedings transferred from federal magistrates court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1619">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1619">review of decision by a delegate of the minister for immigration and citizenship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1619">whether delegate's decision affected by jurisdictional error.  judiciary act 1903 (cth), s.39b  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.51a ; 51a (1); 57 (3); 474 ; pt.2 div.3 sub-div.ab; pt.8 div.2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1627">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1627">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1627">legitimate expectation practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1627">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1627">application for extension of time to file and serve an application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1627">whether it is 'in the interests of the administration of justice' to grant an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1627">s 477a(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">union official advising and encouraging prejudicial alteration in independent contractor's position for a prohibited reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">liability of union for officer's contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">union's liability as principal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">union's vicarious liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">standard of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">div.2 of pt.16 of workplace relations act 1996 not an independent source of liability.  words and phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">"proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">"proceeding under an industrial law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">"advise"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">"encourage"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1476">"person".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2008] WASCA 189">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2008] WASCA 189">order for costs made by full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2008] WASCA 189">order formally recorded and sealed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2008] WASCA 189">no power in full court to reopen perfected orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2008] WASCA 189">no jurisdiction of court of appeal to hear problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2008] WASCA 189">gross delay in making application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">time limits on judicial review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">non-extendable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">time limit exceeded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">application dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">whether dismissal interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">whether abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 75">constitutional validity of time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">refusal to refer s.417 request to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">whether a 'migration decision'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">whether excluded from jurisdiction of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">no arguable case to show competence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">appeal to federal court to set aside bankruptcy notice and against refusal to extend time for compliance with bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">creditor's petition filed subsequent to appeal.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">proceedings commenced in federal court in respect of associated matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">whether proceedings to be transferred to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">whether associated matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">whether same matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">whether inappropriate proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">whether question of general importance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">importance of commonwealth revenue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">whether transfer in the interests of the administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">consideration of prior decisions of other courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1841">policy underlying issuance of bankruptcy notices and public benefit.  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth ), s.43(1)(a)  federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss.14 , 24 and 25  federal magistrates act 1999 (cth), ss.19(1)  (3), 39 (1), (2), (3)(a)-(d)  (6), 99 (2) and 101  federal magistrates court rules 2001 (cth), rr.8.02(4)(a)-(f)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">penalties for breach of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">breaches occurring prior to work choices amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">application made to eligible court after work choices amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">jurisdiction of federal magistrate's court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">whether transitional legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">presumptions concerning procedural or substantive amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">whether penalties should be determined by reference to former provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1825">application for summary dismissal refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1628">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1628">transfer of matter to the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1628">outside the jurisdiction of the federal magistrates court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1219">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1219">decision in bodruddaza does not mean that s.477 of the migration act is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1219">the time limit imposed in s.477 is absolute.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">third application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">competency under s.477 of migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">constitutional validity of s.477</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">effect of bodruddaza</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">application dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1062">also an abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 724">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 724">alleged unlawful arrest and detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 724">application for compensation for unlawful detention.jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 724">whether federal magistrates court can determine whether a matter falls within its jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 724">court has jurisdiction to determine challenge to its jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 724">jurisdiction to hear application for compensation for unlawful detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 724">no jurisdiction to hear application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 721">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 721">time limit on application for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 721">effectiveness and constitutional validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 721">hearing adjourned to allow s.78b notices.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 305" id="cs0">In Fisher v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 ; (2007) 162 FCR 299 , Stone J considered s.477A of the Act which is concerned with imposing time limits on the bringing of proceedings in the Federal Court in relation to migration decisions and is, relevantly, identical to s.477. Although her Honour was considering ss.477 and 477A as they stood prior to the amendments made by the Migration Legislation Amendment Act (No.1) 2009 , in both the earlier and later versions of those provisions the courts' discretion to extend time has been conditional on the court in question being satisfied that an extension of time would be in the interests of the administration of justice. In relation to this Court, her Honour observed: The latter requirement would involve consideration not only of the reasons for not meeting the original time limit but also whether the application, were the extension of time to be granted, would have any prospect of success. An assessment of the prospects of success would require the FMCA to consider at some level the merits of the application for judicial review ... (at 307 [35]) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 773" id="cs1">There is no dispute that the Court has jurisdiction, and at the very least limited jurisdiction, to determine whether it has jurisdiction. [24] Jurisdiction in this case --- submissions
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1104" id="cs2">I have dealt with the foregoing matters in a little detail to dispel any impression which might otherwise be generated that the appellants had been dealt with harshly and in an overly technical manner. However, the obstacle which faces them in their appeal to this Court is even more substantial. Section 476A(3) of the Act prohibits an appeal to this Court from a judgment of the FMCA refusing to extend time under s 477 of the Act. It is competent for the Parliament to limit the jurisdiction of this Court in that way (see SZICV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 39 ; (2007) 158 FCR 260 ; Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 ; (2007) 162 FCR 299 ; SZAJB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 75 ; [2008] FCAFC 75 ; (2008) 168 FCR 410 ; Keo v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 676 ; (2009) 177 FCR 479). The discussion in the cases referred to concerned the terms of s 477 of the Act in an earlier form but the principle applied yields the same conclusion in the present case. The jurisdiction of this Court has been effectively excluded if, as occurred in the present case, an application for judicial review is dismissed because it is brought out of time and no extension of time is granted by the FMCA. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 634" id="cs3">In Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2007] FCA 591 , Stone J suggested (at [35]) that the concept "... in the interests of the administration of justice " in s.477(2)(b) "...would involve consideration not only of the reasons for not meeting the original time limit but also whether the application, were the extension of time to be granted, would have any prospect of success ". (Also see Metera v Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Another (2008) 105 ALD 18 ; [2008] FCA 1627 at [22] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 879" id="cs4">Before 15 March 2009, s 477 of the Act imposed strict time limits on applications to the FMCA for judicial review of decisions of the RRT. Such an application was required to be made within 28 days of the actual notification of a decision of the RRT or (if an extension to this effect was granted) within a further 56 days. If a relevant application had not been made within the 84 days allowed by s 477 in total, relief against a decision such as that made by the RRT on 11 November 2008 was statute barred ( SZICV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 39 ; (2007) 158 FCR 260 ; Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 ; [2007] FCA 591 ; (2007) 162 FCR 299 ; SZAJB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 75 ; (2008) 168 FCR 410 ; Keo v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 676 ; (2009) 177 FCR 479). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 197" id="cs5">In Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2007) 162 FCR 299 ; [2007] FCA 591 , Stone J suggested (at [35]) that the concept "... in the interests of the administration of justice " in s.477(2)(b) "... would involve consideration not only of the reasons for not meeting the original time limit but also whether the application, were the extension of time to be granted, would have any prospect of success. " (Also see Metera v Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Another (2008) 105 ALD 18 ; [2008] FCA 1627 at [22] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCAfam 440" id="cs6">Subsequently, in Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) FCA 591 , Stone J in the Federal Court considered what was meant by the expression "pending" or "pending proceedings" as it appears in s.39 of the Federal Magistrates Act . In that decision her Honour said this: 22 The respondent points out that s 39 requires that there be a proceeding 'pending' in the FMCA for the power of transfer to this Court to arise and submits that a proceeding cannot be 'pending' in a court that does not have jurisdiction in respect of it. This submission fails to take into account that while the Federal Magistrate did not have jurisdiction to review the Tribunal's decision, his Honour did have limited jurisdiction in respect of the proceeding.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1619" id="cs7"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1627" id="cs8">22 In considering whether it is 'in the interests of the administration of justice' to grant an extension of time to file an Application for Judicial Review, the Court is guided by the observations of Stone J in Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another [2007] FCA 591 ; (2007) 162 FCR 299. In such decision at [35] her Honour said:
 The latter requirement [whether an extension of time is in the interests of the administration of justice] would involve consideration not only of the reasons for not meeting the original time limit but also whether the application, were the extension of time to be granted, would have any prospect of success. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1476" id="cs9">Alternatively, the defendant may have recourse to judicial review by a superior court, challenging the right of an inferior court to adjudicate the plaintiff's claim and seeking orders to prevent the inferior court continuing to hear the claim. However, the invocation of jurisdiction ordinarily enlivens the authority of the court in question at least in the first instance to decide whether it has jurisdiction. (at 371 [15] and [16] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon and Crennan JJ)
See also Fisher v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 per Stone J at [13]. These considerations apply to the NSWIRC proceedings which Mr Primmer and the CFMEW(NSW) brought against Fine Line. Consequently, I find that the NSWIRC proceedings were a "proceeding under an industrial law" for the purposes of s.793(1)(k).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] WASCA 189" id="cs10">24 In Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 ; (2007) 162 FCR 299 Stone J considered s 39 of the Federal Magistrates Act which authorised the Federal Magistrates Court to transfer a proceeding pending in that court to the Federal Court or the Family Court and referred to the Macquarie Dictionary which gives the meaning of 'pending' as including 'remaining undecided, awaiting decision'. This was held to be an appropriate description of the proceeding as it was until the federal magistrate made an order disposing of it. In this case, bearing in mind s 38(2) which deals with a circumstance where the matter is 'part heard', the word 'pending' therefore means 'remaining undecided but not heard'.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 75" id="cs11">33 Counsel for SZAJB acknowledged that the finding by this Court that s 477 is invalid or should be read down would involve departing from previous decisions of the Federal Court:

1. SZICV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 39 ; (2007) 158 FCR 260 (decided before Bodruddaza [2007] HCA 14 ; 228 CLR 651). 2. Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 ; (2007) 95 ALD 66 at [39] - [43]. 3. SZJYV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 731. It was noted that in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZKKC [2007] FCAFC 105 ; (2007) 159 FCR 565 the validity of the section was assumed and was apparently not put in issue by the parties. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1945" id="cs12">On any analysis of the situation and on any conceivable evidentiary basis, therefore, in my opinion the applicant has no arguable case for establishing jurisdiction in relation to the relief sought in this matter. Whether relief might be available from either the Federal Court or the High Court, is not something I need to decide. I also note that I was not asked to transfer the matter to the Federal Court on the basis that it had a broader jurisdiction than this Court (cf. Fisher v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 591). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1841" id="cs13">[15] For the purposes of these proceedings the Applicant and Respondent did not dispute that these proceedings and the Federal Court appeal are "in respect of an associated matter" for the purposes of s.19(1) of the FM Act . As the matter was argued on that basis before this Court the contrary view was not put, but the contrary view, namely that an appeal in respect of a bankruptcy notice and fresh proceedings in respect to the issuance of a creditor's petition are not in respect of an associated matter, may be correct: see BGC Construction Pty Ltd v Genovese [2007] FMCA 1842. As to when proceedings are "pending" see generally Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 (" Fisher "); Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd (2007) 207 FLR 141 ; [2007] FMCA 71 (" Genovese 2007 "); Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 , dismissing an appeal from Genovese 2007 . [16] FM Act , s.39(1) and (2). [17] FM Act , s.39(6).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1825" id="cs14">12. The applicant's interlocutory application sought to avoid the anticipated objection, by inviting a transfer of the matter to the Federal Court to avoid any doubt in relation to jurisdiction. On current authority, a transfer can be made effectively, even where this Court itself lacks jurisdiction (see Fisher v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 591). However, as I have indicated above, the argument developed by the respondent challenges the jurisdiction of any eligible court to entertain the present application.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1628" id="cs15">In Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 , Stone J considered the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court to transfer a matter over which it has no jurisdiction to the Federal Court of Australia.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1219" id="cs16">If the legislature wishes to confine that jurisdiction it is entitled to do so (see SZICV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 39 at [45] - [47] and Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 at [43] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1062" id="cs17">However, in my opinion, Buchanan J's opinion is binding upon me in the present situation, and is consistent with previously expressed opinions in that Court (see also Stone J in Fisher v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 at [39] , and Downes J in SZJYV v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 731 at [5] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 724" id="cs18">This Court has jurisdiction, and at the very least limited jurisdiction, to determine an application that it has no jurisdiction: Fisher v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 at para 13 per Stone J ( "Fisher" ), citing Khatri v Price [1999] FCA 1289 ; (1999) 95 FCR 287 at 290 per Katz J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 731" id="cs19">5 I note that in the recent decision of Bodruddaza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] HCA 14 , the High Court declared s 486A of the Migration Act invalid. Section 486A purports to impose time limits on the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain applications for review in much the same way as s 477 applies to the Federal Magistrates Court. The High Court declared s 486A invalid on the basis that it impermissibly limits the right of applicants to seek relief, in the form of constitutional writs, under s 75(v) of the Constitution . In my opinion, this decision does not bring the validity of s 477 into doubt. The Federal Magistrates Court obtains its jurisdiction from statute rather than the Constitution . If the legislature wishes to confine that jurisdiction it is entitled to do so (see SZICV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 39 at [45] - [47] and Fisher v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 591 at [43] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 721" id="cs20">The same opinions were expressed by Stone J recently in Fisher v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 591 at [39] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]</title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l4">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76 Additional original jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l5">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 77 Power to define jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 39 Discretionary transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court or the Family Court</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5E Meaning of purported privative clause decision</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l14">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 477 Time limits on applications to the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l15">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 477A Time limits on applications to the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l16">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 486A Time limit on applications to the High Court for judicial review</title>
<title id="l17">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 500 Review of decision</title>
<title id="l18">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l19">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501A Refusal or cancellation of visa--setting aside and substitution of non-adverse decision under subsection 501(1) or (2)</title>
<title id="l20">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501B Refusal or cancellation of visa--setting aside and substitution of adverse decision under subsection 501(1) or (2)</title>
<title id="l21">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501C Refusal or cancellation of visa--revocation of decision under subsection 501(3) or 501A(3)</title>
<title id="l22">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501F Refusal or cancellation of visa--refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas</title>
<title id="l23">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l24">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l25">MIGRATION REFORM (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS </title>
<title id="l26">MIGRATION LITIGATION REFORM ACT 2005 NO. 137, 2005 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where applicant made references in application for review by refugee review tribunal to material provided to department in visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">meaning of 'information' under s 424a(1) and s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">incorporation by reference in application for review and whether considered 'information' applicant gave for purposes of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">held objective test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where tribunal made positive finding of elaboration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">treatment of omissions in evidence by review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">whether considered information relevant to s 424a(1)(b) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 104">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 104">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 104">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 104">particular social group accepted as single women in albania without male protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 104">whether appellant faced a real chance of being sexually assaulted or trafficked by reason of her membership of that group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 104">adequacy of state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v respondents s152/2003  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas by de facto husband and wife nationals of ukraine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">husband claimed to suffer religious persecution as jehovah's witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugee review tribunal found that incidents of which husband complained were individual and random incidents and did not amount to persecution, and that the chance that he would suffer persecution in future was remote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">tribunal rejected claim that state encouraged or condoned persecution of jehovah's witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether full court of federal court erred in concluding that tribunal committed jurisdictional error in failing to consider a different claim of whether the husband might suffer future harm from private individuals because of religious belief and whether the government of ukraine was able in a practical sense to stop such harm occurring</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">absence of evidence before tribunal to support a conclusion that ukraine did not provide level of protection required.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">applications for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">relevance of attitude or capacity of state to whether fear of harm well-founded, to whether there is persecution, to whether a person is outside country of nationality owing to well-founded fear of persecution and to unwillingness of person to seek protection of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">non-state actor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">harm by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution by non-state actors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">state complicity in persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">persecution tolerated or condoned by state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">failure of state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">unwilling or unable to provide protection.  international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">treaty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">"persecution"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">different theories of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">meaning of treaty provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">proper approach to meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">primacy of text</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.28">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">approaches of courts in countries of refuge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.29">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">protection theory and accountability theory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.30">cited from="[2004] HCA 18">whether a third theory applicable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1188">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1188">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1188">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1188">whether error in assessing claim on basis of membership of a particular social group.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 831">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 831">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 831">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 831">applicant claiming persecution in china on various bases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 831">tribunal finding no convention nexus with the harm experienced by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 831">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 831">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 642">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 642">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 642">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 642">interlocutory dismissal of show cause application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 642">no arguable case.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">appellant a filipino muslim homosexual male</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">appeal from decision of federal magistrates court affirming decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">whether tribunal erred in failing to consider discrete basis for protection in appellant's being both muslim and a male homosexual</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">whether serious harm feared</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">whether relocation finding of tribunal conclusive where discrete basis for protection not considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">appeal upheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 556">matter remitted to tribunal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1188" id="cs0">The appellant submitted that the Tribunal would fall into jurisdictional error if it did not assess the appellant's claim as it was presented to the Tribunal. The appellant relied on the observations of Lander J in SZBJH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 501 , particular at [40]-[42]. As Lander J pointed out at [40]:

 "... The appellant claimed refugee status by reason of being a member of a particular social group.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 942" id="cs1">The RRT again found the appellant not to be a credible witness. Again it rejected his claims and affirmed the decision of the delegate. It indicated that the issue raised by the letter was not used in a manner adverse to the appellant, although, being a forgery, it gave no support to his claims. A further application was then made by the appellant to the FMCA. On this occasion, on 3 August 2007, the application for judicial review was refused ( SZBJH v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FMCA 1395). The FMCA concluded that no jurisdictional error had been identified and that, accordingly, the application for judicial review should be refused. The appellant appealed to this Court. On 21 April 2008 a judge of this Court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter again to the RRT ( SZBJH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 501) . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 831" id="cs2">I accept that it would be a jurisdictional error for the Tribunal to consider a particular social group claim in terms materially different from those put by an applicant or fairly arising from the material [15] . The Tribunal accepted that a particular social group claim might arise from the material in terms of "persons who returned to the PRC after remaining abroad for extended periods". Contrary to the Minister's submissions, the Tribunal did not in its decision exclude the applicant from that group.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 642" id="cs3">Having regard to the applicant's reference to a protest involving Jats I have considered whether there could be any arguable case of jurisdictional error in this matter based upon the recent Federal Court decision in SZBJH v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 501. In that case his Honour Lander J found that the Tribunal had fallen into error in failing to consider a particular social group claim based upon Punjabi Sikh Jat landowners in the terms in which that particular social group had been put forward by the applicant. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 556" id="cs4">However, it was obliged to deal with a discrete basis for protection put forward by him ( Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) 197 ALR 389 , (2003) 77 ALJR 1088 at [24], [95]; Htun v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1802 ; (2001) 194 ALR 244 at [42] ). Put another way, the Tribunal did not identify the correct social group. Considering the greater class does not necessarily deal with the lesser ( SZBJH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 501 at [35] ---[42]). The appellant's contention was, and is, that a male Muslim homosexual was in a different, and more vulnerable, position than other male homosexuals in the Philippines. That contention was not considered. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">dismissal of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">whether costs should follow event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">some parties entered into agreements to submit to orders, including orders as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">orders not made in accordance with those agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">whether losing party should pay costs of parties who had entered into those agreements costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">whether losing applicant should pay costs on basis other than party-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">losing party a public regulatory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">whether indemnity costs should be ordered based on failure to adhere to commonwealth's model litigant policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">whether and when applicant should have realised it could not succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1844">whether case instituted or pursued unreasonably</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 42">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 42">apportionment of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 42">party unsuccessful on some issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 42">principles governing apportionment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 42">case management considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 42">bullock or sanderson orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 42">indemnity costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 45">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 45">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 45">respondent debtor's opposition to creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 45">judgment reserved after hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 45">matter settled immediately prior to delivery of written judgment.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 45">application for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 45">claim for indemnity costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 514">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 514">notice of discontinuance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 514">application by respondents that costs be awarded on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 514">whether circumstances give rise to awarding of costs on basis other than party-party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 514">whether justice of the case requires costs be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 45" id="cs0">In Winspear v Mackinnon [2008] FCA 322 , Marshall J made the following observations at [4]-[5]: [4] The defendants resist the plaintiff's claim for indemnity costs. They contend, correctly, that the usual course is that costs are payable on a party and party basis, unless the circumstances of the case warrant a departure from that normal course; see Colgate-Palmolive Co v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536 ; (1993) 46 FCR 225 at 233, per Sheppard J and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1844 at [3] and [17], per Gray J. [5] The categories of cases in which indemnity costs may be granted are not closed. The overriding consideration is the justice of the particular case. This includes the recognition that there are circumstances which justify the order of indemnity costs, including when a party unreasonably causes another party to incur costs; see Colgate-Palmolive at 233 and Leahy Petroleum at [17]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 514" id="cs1">10 As Marshall J recently observed in Winspear v Mackinnon [2008] FCA 322:
 ...the usual course is that costs are payable on a party and party basis, unless the circumstances of the case warrant a departure from that normal course; see Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited [1993] FCA 536 ; (1993) 46 FCR 225 at 233, per Sheppard J and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1844 at [3] and [17], per Gray J.

 [5] The category of cases in which indemnity costs may be granted are not closed. The overriding consideration is the justice of the particular case. This includes the recognition that there are circumstances which justify the order of indemnity costs, including when a party unreasonably causes another party to incur costs; see Colgate-Palmolive at 233 and Leahy Petroleum at [17].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>