Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">application to bring proceedings on behalf of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">statutory derivative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">whether applicant acting in good faith in bringing proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">whether in the best interests of the company that applicant be granted leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">whether statutory derivative action available in circumstances of liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 52">reading down a defined term in relation to a particular part of the legislative scheme.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 586">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 586">statutory derivative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 586">application for leave under s 237 of the corporations act 2001 (cth) to bring an action in the name of a company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 586">company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 586">whether pt 2f.1a of the act has application when company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 586">whether in the best interests of company that leave be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">commissioner of taxation v linter textiles australia ltd (in liquidation)  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">loss carry forward provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">losses incurred by taxpayer company in preceding years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">requirement of continuity during year of income of beneficial ownership in shares in the taxpayer company that carry between them various rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">winding-up order made in respect of parent of taxpayer company and subsequently in respect of taxpayer company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">liquidators appointed in each case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether shares in the taxpayer company still carried between them the rights required to be attached to those shares.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">loss carry forward provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">losses incurred by taxpayer company in preceding years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">requirement of continuity during year of income of beneficial ownership in shares in the taxpayer company that carry between them various rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">winding-up order made in respect of parent of taxpayer company and subsequently in respect of taxpayer company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">liquidators appointed in each case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether, subsequent to winding up of parent company, the shares held by parent company in the taxpayer company were not "beneficially owned" by the parent company.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">loss carry forward provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">losses incurred by taxpayer company in preceding years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">discretion in commissioner of taxation to apply additional requirements for carrying forward previous tax losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">requirement that voting power in taxpayer company be controlled, or capable of being controlled, by an individual or two or more persons not being companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">ultimate holding company of parent of taxpayer company was trustee of two trusts administered for benefit of a family</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether family still controlled voting power in taxpayer company.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">loss carry forward provisions in income tax legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">meaning of requirement that shares held in taxpayer company be "beneficially owned" by parent company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">effect of intervening winding-up orders and appointment of liquidators in each company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">meaning and purpose of the requirement of beneficial ownership in this context</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">relevance and utility of analysis by reference to the law of trusts and equitable ownership of property.  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.28">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">involuntary winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.29">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether company in liquidation divested of beneficial ownership of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.30">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether liquidator trustee for the benefit of creditors.  trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.31">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether liquidator trustee for the benefit of creditors.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.32">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">appeal before high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.33">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">application to amend notice of appeal to raise explicitly the application of statute to the facts and circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.34">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether amendment should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.35">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">whether any procedural injustice involved in such amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.36">cited from="[2005] HCA 20">considerations relevant to the determination of application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">australian securities and investments commission v edensor nominees pty ltd  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">federal courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court exercising federal or state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court had power to make orders pursuant to the corporations law of a state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether australian securities and investments commission "the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether remedies sought were "an injunction or declaration".  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court exercising federal or state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether australian securities and investments commission "the commonwealth".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">agar v hyde  agar v worsley  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">particular relationships</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">sport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">administrators and players</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">whether duty of care owed by rugby union rule-making body to players.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">service out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">service pursuant to rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">whether necessary to show a good arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">setting aside service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 41">refusal to exercise jurisdiction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">chief commissioner of stamp duties v william francis buckle  ors  stamp duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">deed of settlement establishing discretionary trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">trust property comprised land purchased with proceeds of two loans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">duty assessed on supplemental deed altering destination of corpus of trust property in default of appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">ad valorem duty payable in respect of "unencumbered value of the property ... conveyed"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">identification of property conveyed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether duty payable on unencumbered value of assets which comprised the trust fund or amount which took into account vicissitudes inherent under the deed of settlement.  trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">nature of trustee's right of exoneration and recoupment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether trustee's right constitutes beneficial interest in trust assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether trustee's right an encumbrance on the interests of beneficiaries conveyed which is to be disregarded for purposes of s 66(1) of the stamp duties act 1920 (nsw).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">judicial power of the commonwealth admiralty and maritime jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">claims relating to possession, ownership or mortgage of ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">claims between co-owners relating to possession, ownership, operation or earnings of ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">admiralty act 1988 (cth), ss. 4(2) , 5 (1), 16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 76(iii).   shipping and navigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">admiralty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">action in rem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">proprietary maritime claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">whether confined to claim by which plaintiff asserts own title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">specific performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">whether available in action in rem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">claim between co-owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">whether extends to equitable co-owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">admiralty act 1988 (cth), ss. 4(2) , 5 (1), 16 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">appeal from state supreme court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">matter arising under law made by commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">whether court exercising federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">import licences issued under customs (import licensing) regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">agreement relating to benefit of licensed quota</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">action to enforce agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs act 1901 (cth), s. 50(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">customs (import licensing) regulations, reg. 7,9,16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12), s. 76(ii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 31">judiciary act 1901 (cth), s. 39.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">effect on antecedent transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">preferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">avoidance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">trading trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">payments to trust creditor out of trust property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">whether void against trustee in bankruptcy of trading trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">"payment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">"from his own money"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 5 (1)*, 116 , 122 (1)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1979] HCA 61">companies act, 1961-1975 (q.), s. 293 (1)+.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">application for leave nunc pro tunc pursuant to s 500(2) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) to commence proceedings against company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">application for leave to bring derivative suit in name of or on behalf of company to enforce right of indemnity out of trust assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">application by first defendant to strike out plaintiff's statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">leave granted nunc pro tunc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">leave to bring derivative suit in name of or on behalf of company refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 303">proceedings stayed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 98">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 98">application for freezing order under rule 25.11 of the uniform civil procedure rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 98">effect of lodgement of proof of debt on ability to claim a right of subrogation to former trustee's right of indemnity out of trust assets to meet judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 98">whether plaintiff has standing to maintain such a claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 98">held -sufficiently arguable case as to existence of right of subrogation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 98">reasonable apprehension of risk or dissipation of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 98">freezing order granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">misleading announcement sent to asx</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether pleaded version of draft announcement taken to board meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether resolution to approve draft announcement and authorise for sending to asx passed at board meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">detailed consideration of factual circumstances before, during and after board meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of constraints in appellate review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">discussion of advantages of trial judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">discussion of advantages in appellate courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of s 140 of evidence act and briginshaw v briginshaw</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">failure to call witnesses who were at board meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether asic under obligation akin to prosecutorial duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether appropriate to reason by analogy from criminal procedure to civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">discussion of civil penalty regime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">not appropriate to reason by analogy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">no prosecutorial duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether asic's obligation to act fairly required witnesses to be called</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">discussion of obligation of fairness owed by government agencies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of principles of fair trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of government agencies as model litigants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of asic's role as regulator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of asic's powers under asic act and corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">failure to call witnesses may constitute breach of obligation of fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.22">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of evidentiary principles enunciated in blatch v archer, jones v dunkel and whitlam v asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.23">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">failure to call witnesses taken into account in deciding whether onus of proof satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.24">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">breach of obligation of fairness taken into account in deciding whether onus of proof satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.25">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">obligation of fairness breached</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.26">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">burden of proof not discharged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.27">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">not proved that resolution passed. corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.28">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">directors' statutory duty of care and diligence under s 180 of corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.29">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">assuming resolution passed, whether non-executive directors contravened duty in voting for resolution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.30">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">discussion of duty of care and diligence of non-executive directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.31">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">non-executive directors may rely on management and officers to a greater extent than executive directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.32">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">duty dependent on facts of each case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.33">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of factual circumstances surrounding resolution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.34">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">if resolution passed, contravention properly found. corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.35">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">definition of officer in s 9 of corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.36">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of company secretary as officer when also general counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.37">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether participation in matters that affected the whole or a substantial part of the business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.38">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">participation need not be as one of those in ultimate control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.39">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">test is one of participation in making of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.40">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">participation more than administrative arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.41">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">must be real contribution to making of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.42">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">participation made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.43">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether statutory duty extends to any matter which falls within the scope of responsibilities as company secretary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.44">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">duty extends to responsibilities actually carried out by company secretary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.45">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">relevant acts and omissions were within responsibilities as company secretary. corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.46">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">statutory duty of care and diligence of company secretary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.47">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">assuming resolution passed, whether duty of care breached in failing to advise draft announcement was misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.48">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">would be breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.49">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether duty breached in failing to warn of limitations in cash flow models</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.50">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">no breach because knowledge of limitations not proved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.51">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether duty breached in failing to advise or obtain advice for board or ceo concerning disclosure of deed of covenant and indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.52">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether company secretary could rely on absence of warning by external advisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.53">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">reliance not available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.54">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">breach properly found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.55">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether breach of duty in failing to advise nature of "best estimate"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.56">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">on facts, no breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.57">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether breach in failing to advise of failure to take into account superimposed inflation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.58">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">breach properly found. corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.59">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">definition of officer in s 9 of corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.60">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether chief financial officer participated in decisions that affected the whole or substantial part of company's business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.61">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">not confined to acts and omissions alleged to have been in breach of statutory duty as officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.62">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">first consider whether person is an officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.63">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">then consider whether breach of duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.64">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">participation made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.65">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether chief financial officer had capacity to affect company's financial standing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.66">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">test focuses on the particular officer, not an abstract officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.67">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">capacity made out. corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.68">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">statutory duty of due care and diligence of chief financial officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.69">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether duty breached in failing to warn of limitations in cash flow analysis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.70">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">breach properly found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.71">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether duty breached in failing to advise nature of "best estimate" and failing to take into account superimposed inflation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.72">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">on facts, no breach. evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.73">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.74">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">admissibility of prior inconsistent statement for non-hearsay purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.75">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of r v adam and adam v the queen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.76">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">no inconsistency identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.77">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">admissibility as admissions of documents stating resolution had been passed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.78">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">consideration of lustre hosiery limited v york</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.79">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">whether circumstances were such as to make it unlikely that erroneous statements would be allowed to pass unchallenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.80">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 331">no error shown in ruling not admissible.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] NSWSC 303" id="cs0">Reliance is placed (inter alia) on Aliprandi v Griffith Vintners Pty Ltd (in liq) (1991) 9 ACLC 1530 and ACT Commissioner for Revenue v Slaven [2009] FCA 744 (in the latter case, Rares J was satisfied that s 511 was the source of "the Court's undoubted jurisdiction and power to permit a person other than the liquidator to commence proceedings in the company's name when it is in voluntary liquidation").
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] NSWSC 98" id="cs1">As to the second, in circumstances where it was said that the liquidators have to date failed and/or refused to bring proceedings against PS Securities (or may be unable to do so through lack of funds) to recover the judgment debt, it is submitted that Ms Hu has an arguable basis on which to seek to bring a creditor's derivative action under the general law to enforce the trustee's right of indemnity against trust assets in the hands of PS Securities (Mr Young relying upon Aliprandi v Griffith Vintners Pty Ltd (in liq) (1991) 9 ACLC 1530 ; ACT Commissioner for Revenue v Slaven [2009] FCA 744).
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWCA 331" id="cs2">

704 The principle is manifest most often by reference to specific acts of alleged default by the relevant governmental agency -

 "Conscientious compliance with the procedures designed to minimise cost and delay" ( Kenny v State of South Australia (1987) 46 SASR 268 at 273, referred to in Scott v Handley at [44], [45]);

 The Crown should not "take or be seen to be taking, advantage of its own default" ( SCI Operations v The Commonwealth (1996) 69 FCR 346 at 368 per Beaumont and Einfeld JJ);

 The Crown should not take "technical points" ( Melbourne Steamship Co v Moorehead at 342);

 As a creditor, the Crown should provide assistance and information to a liquidator, so that the liquidator can determine whether to bring his own proceedings, before the government agency seeks leave to proceed in his place ( Commissioner for Revenue (ACT) v Slaven (2009) FCA 744 at [22] - [25] per Rares J). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1993 - SECT 4 Vesting of additional jurisdiction in certain courts</title>
<title id="l2">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 477 Powers of liquidator</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 511 Application to Court to have questions determined or powers exercised</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588G Director's duty to prevent insolvent trading by company</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588M Recovery of compensation for loss resulting from insolvent trading</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588R Creditor may sue for compensation with liquidator's consent</title>
<title id="l9">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l10">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 131 Exclusion of evidence of settlement negotiations</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 5 Creation of Court</title>
<title id="l13">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l14">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l15">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l16">JURISDICTION OF COURTS (CROSS-VESTING) ACT 1987 - SECT 9 Exercise of jurisdiction pursuant to cross-vesting laws</title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l18">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 198">1 in the reasons for judgment of the honourable justices dowsett, bennett and edmonds jj delivered today: in para 2, line 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 198">delete "livedg7" and replace with "lived"; 2 in the reasons for judgment of the honourable justices dowsett, bennett and edmonds jj delivered today: in para 21, line 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 198">delete "the section provides:" and replace with "the section at the relevant date provided:". 3 in the reasons for judgment of the honourable justices dowsett, bennett and edmonds jj delivered today: in para 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 198">delete the quoted section in its entirety and replace with the following:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2012">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2012">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2012">adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2012">temporal operation of s.424a of the act not limited to the pre-hearing stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2012">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2012">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 48B Minister may determine that section 48A does not apply to non-citizen</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 71">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 71">application to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 71">jurisdiction and power of magistrates court of western australia to issue order of former local court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 71">whether action pending</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 71">hearing and determination of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 71">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">proceedings instituted by applicant under part ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">applicant filed amended application and amended statement of claim alleging fraud and improper conduct of commissioner and officers in relation to the issuing of assessment notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">same issues raised and determined adversely to applicant in proceedings in state courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">application by commissioner for summary dismissal of amended application and amended statement of claim held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1688">amended application and amended statement of claim dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 448">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">summary judgment application made by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">defence raised by respondent under s 123 of trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">moving party bears the onus in a summary judgment application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">consideration of the test under s 31a of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">respondent must show that because of the s 123 defence, the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">consideration of whether the evidence reveals a real issue of fact to be resolved for the respondent's defence to succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">while s 31a lowers the threshold for summary judgment applications, the court must ensure that litigants are not unjustly shut out from litigating an issue that is fairly arguable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">a pivotal fact raised by the respondent's defence not established and therefore respondent failed to discharge its onus  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">security for costs application made by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">applicant admitted to being impecunious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">security for costs opposed because applicant could not meet an order in the amount sought and that would stifle the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">staged payments found to be the best way to deal with the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">strike out application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">s 31a federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">moving party bears the onus of proving the other party has no reasonable prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">consideration of the standard to be applied when question of law involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">there must be a real question of law and one that is sufficiently strong to warrant a full hearing  defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">statements of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">effect when deciding claim relating to operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">consideration of the deledio approach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">whether hypothesis of claimant a reasonable one and consistent with the relevant statement of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">the tribunal is not to engage in any fact finding at this 'third' step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 264">no onus of proof involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 155">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 155">summary dismissal of appeal pursuant to s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 69">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 69">summary dismissal of judicial review proceedings relating to child support orders made by a local court of nsw in 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 69">causes of action relied upon have no reasonable prospects of succeeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 69">proceedings dismissed pursuant to s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">application to summarily dismiss proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">principles.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">application to transfer proceedings to the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">principles.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">alleged misleading and deceptive conduct in relation to alleged representations in native title and aboriginal heritage matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">whether allegations made "in trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 5">injunction sought to restrain respondents in respect of native title and aboriginal heritage matters.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1500">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1500">whether summary judgment pursuant to s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1500">whether the whole or part of the respondents' cross-claim should be dismissed or struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1500">whether interlocutory injunction should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1500">all applications refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">application for dismissal of proceedings under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">alternatively for the statement of claim to be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether reasonable cause of action disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether court has jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether matter 'arising under any laws made by the parliament'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether s 47a of the limitation act 1935 (wa) applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether causes of action statute barred    torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">proceedings against civil aviation safety authority (casa) and officers of casa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">alleged negligence in performance of statutory duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">existence and scope of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether statutory duty of care owed by casa or its officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether common law duty of care owed by casa or its officers not to cause economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether misfeasance by officers of casa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1487">whether private right of damages available to applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">application to strike out notice of appeal from decision of federal magistrate for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">bankruptcy notice issued in respect of unpaid costs order made by district court judge at interlocutory hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">application by respondent to set aside bankruptcy notice dismissed by federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">court's jurisdiction to strike out a notice of appeal under s 25(2b)(aa) of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">relevance of s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">whether costs order of district court a "final order" for the purposes of s 40(1)(g) of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">whether federal magistrate failed to take into account issues, affidavits or relevant legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">whether failure by the applicant's solicitor to comply with r 2.05 and r 2.06 of the federal court (bankruptcy) rules 2005 and whether relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">application of s 41 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">and exercise of judicial discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">allegation of bias on part of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">whether notice of appeal raises arguable issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">whether indemnity costs warranted   held: notice of motion to strike out the notice of appeal for abuse of process successful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">notice of appeal struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">costs order made at interlocutory stage by district court was a "final order" under s 40(1)(g) of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">no errors in the federal magistrate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 1016">the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the notice of motion on a party-party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">whether first applicant a proper party and capable of commencing proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">whether second applicant has standing to bring appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">whether issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 965">whether right to damages for alleged breaches of social security act 1991</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">motions for dismissal of proceedings pursuant to federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">alternatively for statement of claim to be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">federal court rules order 11 rule 16 or order 20 rule 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">construction of option in contract to lease and subsequent deed of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">consideration of evidence of extrinsic material in aid of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">common intention unilateral mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">equitable estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">breach of warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 51aa and 51ac of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 955">ss 6(3) and 52 trade practices act and s 10 fair trading act 1987 (wa).</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 1842">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1842">appeal to federal court to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1842">creditor's petition filed subsequent to appeal.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1842">proceedings commenced in federal court in respect of associated matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1842">whether proceedings to be transferred to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1842">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1842">whether associated matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1842">whether same matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 995">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 995">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 995">single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 995">application for summary judgment pursuant to s 25(2b)(aa) of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 995">no arguable ground of appeal or error on the part of the primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 995">appeal summarily dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 448" id="cs0">It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';

(g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;

(h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;

(i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party. See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 544" id="cs1">It is clear from its terms, particularly subs (3), that s 31A sets a lower standard for applications of this kind than that set by High Court decisions such as General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (N.S.W. ) [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129 to 130 per Barwick CJ: see Duncan v Lipscombe Child Care Services Inc (2006) 150 IR 471 ; [2006] FCA 458 at [6] per Heerey J, Lawrenson Light Metal Die Casting Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Cosmick Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 753 at [15] per Heerey J, Jewiss v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2006) 65 ATR 222 ; [2006] FCA 1688 at [26] per Mansfield J, Boston Commercial at [27] per Rares J; Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [4] and [5] per Gilmour J, Jefferson Ford at [124] per Gordon J and Vranic v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCA 672 at [21] per Greenwood J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 264" id="cs2">It is clear from its terms, particularly subsection (3), that s 31A sets a lower standard for strike out applications than that set by High Court decisions such as General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 129 to 130 per Barwick CJ: see Duncan v Lipscombe Child Care Services (2006) 150 IR 471 ; [2006] FCA 458 at [5] per Heerey J, Lawrenson Light Metal Die Casting Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Cosmick Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 753 at [15] per Heerey J, Jewiss v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2006] FCA 1688 at [26] per Mansfield J, Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd (2007) 236 ALR 720 ; [2006] FCA 1352 (" Boston Commercial ") at [27] per Rares J; Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [4] per Gilmour J and Jefferson Ford at [124] per Gordon J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 155" id="cs3">It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';
 (g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;
 (h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;
 (i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party.

 See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5]; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 69" id="cs4">It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';
 (g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;
 (h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;
 (i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party. See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 5" id="cs5">In Dandaven v Harbeth Holdings Pty Ltd [25] the Federal Court summarised the relevant principles applicable to a summary dismissal application as follows: Success under s 31A does not require a demonstration that the case is hopeless or bound to fail. The following principles are of general application to an application under s 31A: (a) the Court must be very cautious not to do a party an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings; (b) the Court ought not dismiss a claim based on a predictive assessment of prospects, where it is possible that if the claim went to trial, it may succeed; (c) in a case where evidence can give colour and content to allegations, and where questions of fact and degree are important, the Court should be more reluctant to dismiss a proceeding on the face of a pleading; (d) it is not Parliament's intention to require the Court to engage in lengthy and elaborate trials on an interlocutory basis for the purposes of determining whether or not a proceeding has no reasonable prospects of success. It may be necessary for the opposing party to provide no more than an outline of evidence, sufficient to show that there is a genuine dispute, to prevent the summary application becoming a trial; (e) if there is a real issue of fact or law to be decided, and the rights of the parties depend upon it, it is obviously appropriate that the matter goes to trial. It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success'; (g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial; (h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects; (i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party. See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd (2006) [2006] FCA [2006] FCA 1352 ; 1352 ; 70 IPR 146 at [42] ---[48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30]; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21]; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60. [26] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1500" id="cs6">I agree with the helpful summary of the relevant principles given by Gilmour J in Dandaven v Harbeth Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 955 where, at [5] and [6] of his Honour's Reasons, his Honour said:

 Section 31A of the Act

 Section 31A lowers the bar for obtaining summary judgment: White Industries Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 511 ; (2007) 160 FCR 298. The second reading speech of the Migration Litigation Reform Bill 2005 which introduced s 31A stated that its purpose was to strengthen "the power of the courts to deal with unmeritorious matters by broadening the grounds on which federal courts can summarily dispose of unsustainable cases": Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [45] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd [2008] FCAFC 60 at [124] . Success under s 31A does not require a demonstration that the case is hopeless or bound to fail. The following principles are of general application to an application under s 31A:

 (a) the Court must be very cautious not to do a party an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings;
 (b) the Court ought not dismiss a claim based on a predictive assessment of prospects, where it is possible that if the claim went to trial, it may succeed;
 (c) in a case where evidence can give colour and content to allegations, and where questions of fact and degree are important, the Court should be more reluctant to dismiss a proceeding on the face of a pleading;
 (d) it is not Parliament's intention to require the Court to engage in lengthy and elaborate trials on an interlocutory basis for the purposes of determining whether or not a proceeding has no reasonable prospects of success. It may be necessary for the opposing party to provide no more than an outline of evidence, sufficient to show that there is a genuine dispute, to prevent the summary application becoming a trial;
 (e) if there is a real issue of fact or law to be decided, and the rights of the parties depend upon it, it is obviously appropriate that the matter goes to trial. It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';
 (g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;
 (h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;
 (i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party. See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1487" id="cs7">It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';

 (g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;

 (h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;

 (i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party. See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1016" id="cs8">A question arises whether, in considering s 25(2B)(aa), it is necessary for the Court to also have recourse to s 31A. In a number of cases the Court has exercised power pursuant to s 25(2B)(aa) and given summary judgment without reference to s 31A: Druett v Department of Families, Community Services  Indigenous Affairs [2007] FCA 995 , Zambini v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1773 , Dunstan v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2007] FCA 1326 , Rana v University of Adelaide (No 2) [2008] FCA 941. However in other cases the Court has linked the power under s 25(2B)(aa) to the jurisdiction of the Court under s 31A and summarily dismissed an appeal on the basis that the appellant had no reasonable prospect of success in prosecuting its grounds of appeal: Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 , Bishop v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1118. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 965" id="cs9">It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';

 (g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;

 (h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;

 (i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party. See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 612" id="cs10">It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';

(g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;

(h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;

(i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party. See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 955" id="cs11">6 Success under s 31A does not require a demonstration that the case is hopeless or bound to fail. The following principles are of general application to an application under s 31A:

 (a) the Court must be very cautious not to do a party an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings;

 (b) the Court ought not dismiss a claim based on a predictive assessment of prospects, where it is possible that if the claim went to trial, it may succeed;

 (c) in a case where evidence can give colour and content to allegations, and where questions of fact and degree are important, the Court should be more reluctant to dismiss a proceeding on the face of a pleading;

 (d) it is not Parliament's intention to require the Court to engage in lengthy and elaborate trials on an interlocutory basis for the purposes of determining whether or not a proceeding has no reasonable prospects of success. It may be necessary for the opposing party to provide no more than an outline of evidence, sufficient to show that there is a genuine dispute, to prevent the summary application becoming a trial;

 (e) if there is a real issue of fact or law to be decided, and the rights of the parties depend upon it, it is obviously appropriate that the matter goes to trial. It cannot be said that where there is a real factual dispute and that factual dispute must be resolved to determine whether the claim succeeds that there is 'no reasonable prospect of success';

 (g) it ought not be used to shut out proceedings where, on a proposition of law, there may be room for doubt. On questions of law, an inquiry as to their merit should not be for the purpose of resolving them and also not simply to determine whether the argument is hopeless, but in order to decide if it is sufficiently strong to warrant a trial;

 (h) evidence of an ambivalent character will usually be sufficient to amount to reasonable prospects;

 (i) in determining if there are real issues of fact in issue so as to preclude summary judgment the courts must draw all reasonable inferences in favour of the non-moving party.

See Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923 at [5] ; Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1352 ; (2006) 70 IPR 146 at [42] - [48]; Hicks v Ruddock [2007] FCA 299 ; (2007) 156 FCR 574 at [13] ; Bond v Barry (2007) 73 IPR 490 at [46]; Commonwealth Bank of Australia v ACN 000 247 601 Pty Ltd (in Liq) (formerly Stanley Thompson Valuers Pty Ltd) [2006] FCA 1416 at [30] ; Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 at [21] ; Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Limited [2008] FCAFC 60. .

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1841" id="cs12">[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 1842" id="cs13">BGC Construction v Genovese [2007] FMCA 1842 (9 November 2007)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Magistrates Court of Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Federal Magistrates Court of Australia  2007  [2007] FMCA 1842

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] BGC Construction v Genovese [2007] FMCA 1842 (9 November 2007)
Last Updated: 20 November 2007

 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD v GENOVESE [2007] FMCA 1842
 BANKRUPTCY --- Appeal to Federal Court to set aside bankruptcy notice --- creditor's petition filed subsequent to appeal. PRACTICE  PROCEDURE --- Proceedings commenced in Federal Court in respect of associated matter --- whether proceedings to be transferred to Federal Court --- factors to be considered --- whether associated matter --- whether same matter. Bankruptcy Act 1999 (Cth), ss.43(1)(a), and 44
 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.32
 Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.5 , 18 , and 19
 Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923
 Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd (2007) 207 FLR 141 ; [2007] FMCA 71
 Explanatory Memorandum, Federal Magistrates Bill 1999 , House of Representatives, the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia
 Applicant: BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
 Respondent: HERCOLE PIETRO GENOVESE
 File number: PEG 40 of 2007
 Judgment of: Lucev FM
 Hearing date: 30 April 2007
 Date of last submission: 30 April 2007
 Delivered at: Perth
 Delivered on: 9 November 2007
 REPRESENTATION
 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A R MacPherson
 Solicitors for the Applicant: Hotchkin Hanly
 Respondent: Mr H P Genovese in person
 ORDERS

 (1) That ground 4 of the Notice Stating Grounds of Opposition to the Creditors Petition ("Notice") be dismissed. (2) That the Respondent (Genovese) pay the costs of the Applicant (BGC Construction Pty Ltd) in relation to these proceedings concerning ground 4 of the Notice, and if not agreed, such costs are to be taxed under Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules .
 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
 COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
 PERTH
 PEG 40 OF 2007
 BGC CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD
Applicant

And

 HERCOLE PIETRO GENOVESE
Respondent

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 Facts
 On 29 January 2007 this Court dismissed an application by the respondent to set aside the applicant's bankruptcy notice. [1] An appeal by the respondent against the decision in Genovese was instituted on 16 February 2007. [2] The Federal Court Appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court on 19 June 2007. [3] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 995" id="cs14">2 Mr Kunc, who appears for the Department, then foreshadowed a notice of motion seeking summary judgment pursuant to s 25(2B)(aa) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ('the Act') and, in the alternative, an order that the Department be removed as a party to the proceedings pursuant to s 25(2B)(a) of the Act. A single judge of the Court has power under those sections to make the orders sought (s 25 ; Zegarac v Dellios [2007] FCA 566 at [12] ; Zambini v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2006] FCA 1773 at [4] ; Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 923). The notice of motion for summary judgment was filed on 24 May 2007 ('the motion'). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 4 Repeal</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 37 Power of Court to rescind orders etc.</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 41 Bankruptcy notices</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 43 Jurisdiction to make sequestration orders</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 306 Formal defect not to invalidate proceedings</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 151 Seals of bodies established under State law</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l10">BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS 1996 </title>
<title id="l11">BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS 1996 - REG 1.03 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l12">BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS 1996 - REG 4.01 Application for bankruptcy notice</title>
<title id="l13">BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS 1996 - REG 4.02A Service of bankruptcy notices</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l15">LIMITATION ACT </title>
<title id="l16">LIMITATION ACT - SECT 37 Appointment of tutor</title>
<title id="l17">LOCAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l18">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l19">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 - SECT 7 </title>
<title id="l20">INTERPRETATION ACT 1984 - SECT 37 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 823">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 823">application for extension of time in which to file and serve an application for leave to appeal and for leave to appeal a self executing order of the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 823">query as to basis for self executing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 823">unsatisfactory explanation for long delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 823">application should be made to federal magistrates court to set aside order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 823">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 451">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 451">claim for protection visa refused by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 451">high court application for order nisi remitted to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 451">whether appropriate to enlarge time or otherwise grant relief on account of long and unsatisfactorily explained delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 451">whether procedural fairness denied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 451">application for order nisi and 'amended application' in federal court dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 800">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 800">consent determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 800">request for orders to be made under s 87 of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 800">consideration of whether the orders appear appropriate to the court and whether orders ought to be made as sought determining native title rights and interests in the gurungu/kulumintini and other groups.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1386">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1386">determination of native title by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">consent determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">court's discretion making order under s 87</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1117">relevant factors court to take into account when determining whether court is satisfied it is appropriate to make orders sought</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ATOMIC ENERGY ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l1">ATOMIC ENERGY ACT 1953 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 57 Determination of prescribed body corporate etc.</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 66 Notice of application</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 87 Power of Federal Court if parties reach agreement</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 94A Order containing determination of native title</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 225 Determination of native title</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">CROWN LANDS ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">service of originating process outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">application to set aside order granting leave to serve originating process outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">meaning of prima facie case requirement of o.8 r.2(2)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">whether prima facie case established in present case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">whether evidence sworn from information and belief can be relied upon in an application seeking an order pursuant to o.8 r.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">discretion under o.1 r.8 to dispense with prima facie case requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">whether federal court forum coveniens.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">statements allegedly made regarding progress of litigation in scotland and in the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">s.52 trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">s.11 fair trading act 1985 (vic).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">interim interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether serious issues to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether applicant contractor may enjoin respondent principal from taking further steps to demand or obtain payment under performance guarantees issued by respondent banks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether applicant contractor guilty of unconscionable conduct in contravention of trade practices act 1974 (cth) s 51aa.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">leave to serve proceeding in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">federal court rules o 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether proceeding of kind(s) mentioned in o 8 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether prima facie case of contravention of s 51aa if the trade practices act 1974 (cth) by calling on performance guarantees by respondent banks when no contractual entitlement to do so.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 811">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 811">service out of the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 811">whether federal claims a trivial or insubstantial aspect of the controversy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 811">whether there is jurisdiction to hear and determine a common law claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 811">whether there was material non-disclosure in the course of the hearing of the ex parte application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 811">whether orders giving leave to serve out of the jurisdiction should be set aside conflict of laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 811">whether the court is a clearly inappropriate forum</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 881" id="cs0">37 In my view, Clough has a prima facie case for the relief variously claimed in that, for reasons I set out below, ONGC would arguably be in breach of the contract and acting contrary to the express terms of the performance guarantees and acting unconscionably, in contravention of s 51AA of the Act, if it were to take further steps in making demands or obtaining payment under the performance guarantees: Merpro Montassa Ltd v Conoco Specialty Products Inc [1991] FCA 70 ; (1991) 28 FCR 387 , 390; Western Australia v Vetter Trittler Pty Ltd (in liq) (1991) 30 FCR 102 , 110; Sydbank Soenderjylland A/S v Bannerton Holdings Pty (1996) 68 FCR 539 , 549; Eurogold Ltd v Oxus Holdings (Malta) Ltd [2006] FCA 1270. It is not necessary for an applicant seeking leave to show a prima facie cause of action in respect of each of the causes of action pleaded: Bray v F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd [2003] FCAFC 153 ; (2003) 130 FCR 317 ; Traxon Industries Pty Ltd v Emerson Electric Co [2006] FCA 450 ; (2006) 230 ALR 297 , 311 [65]. Nevertheless, Clough does so here. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 811" id="cs1">7 On 18 August 2006, I granted the applicants leave to serve the application and statement of claim on each of the respondents out of the jurisdiction ( Eurogold Limited v Oxus Holdings (Malta) Limited [2006] FCA 1270). Oxus Gold now applies under O 9 r 7 of the Federal Court Rules , alternatively pursuant to the implied powers of the Court, for orders that the application be set aside, or alternatively, that the orders of 18 August 2006 be discharged. In the further alternative Oxus Gold seeks orders that the proceeding be stayed on the basis that the forum is inappropriate.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 87 Ancillary orders.</title>
</legistitles>
</case>