Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1078">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1078">whether proprietary claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1078">whether bankrupt competent to commence proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1078">whether claims constitute personal injury or wrong within the meaning of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1078">whether attempt to re-litigate issues already ventilated before the court practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1078">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1078">whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1045">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1045">consideration of the exercise of the power conferred by s 426a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1045">consideration of the principles informing the exercise of the discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1045">consideration of whether an obligation arises in the refugee review tribunal to adjourn or reschedule a hearing upon the failure of the applicant to appear in circumstances where the applicant has expressed a desire to appear.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">contested creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">application for sequestration order founded upon creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">where respondent debtor failed to comply with the bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">where the debtor failed to satisfy the court that he had a counter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">claim, set</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">off or cross</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">demand equal to or exceeding the sum of the bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1454">whether the debtor has raised "other sufficient cause" why a sequestration ought not to be made as provided by s.52(2)(b) of the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">re carmody; ex parte glennan  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">"matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">divisibility of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">whether can be restricted to point of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">whether court has duty to determine entire matter.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">jurisdiction subject to exclusion by other acts.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">appeal to full court of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">whether without jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">alternative proceedings involving review by administrative appeals tribunal and appeal to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">applicable provisions governing federal court in each case.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">public tax ruling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">duty imposed on commissioner to abide by ruling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">whether bound by duty where contradictory order of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">whether mandamus available.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">applications for orders nisi for prohibition and mandamus and other relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">whether applicant has demonstrated reasonably arguable case.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.22">cited from="[2000] HCA 37">whether constitutionally permissible to restrict appeal to federal court to point of law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 327">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 327">amendment of rules of registered organisation to eliminate an elected office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 327">question whether the rules, as amended, are valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 327">whether rules fail to make a provision required by the act; namely, a provision circumscribing the circumstances of removal from office of an elected person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 327">distinction between the provisions made by the rules and the application of those provisions to a particular case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 327">whether the rules, as amended, impose on members limitations that are oppressive, unreasonable or unjust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 327">distinction between a rule limitation which is oppressive etc. to members and the amendment of a rule being unjust to a particular member.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">formal defect or irregularity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">amount due on judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">understatement of interest due on debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">notice demanding payment of amount comprising debt and understated interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 34">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 41(2)(a) , 306 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">issue not raised at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">action for negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">conduct of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">prejudice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">royal commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">letters patent issued by commonwealth and state for concurrent inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">presentment under state law for perjury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">commonwealth law that statement by witness in course of giving evidence before commission not admissible in commonwealth, state or territory civil or criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">whether statement or disclosure made in the course of giving evidence before commonwealth commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">royal commissions act 1902 (cth), s. 6dd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">evidence act 1958 (vict.), s. 30.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">special leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">point not taken at trial or in court of criminal appeal.  statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">commencement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">amendment to law concerning false evidence before royal commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">amendment effective between giving of evidence and trial for perjury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">royal commissions act 1902 (cth), s. 6dd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 41">statute law (miscellaneous amendments) act (no. 1) 1982 (cth), s. 202.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">plea of authorship and ownership of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">general traverse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">defendant's case that copyright vested in partnership of which author a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no plea of assignment or transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">point not made issue by conduct at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">whether maintainable on appeal.  partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">acquisition from individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership act 1958 (vict.), s. 24(1).*   * section 24 of the partnership act 1958 (vict.) provides: "all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the partnership stock or acquired whether by purchase or otherwise on account of the firm or for the purposes and in the course of the partnership business are called in this act partnership property and must be held and applied by the partners exclusively for the purposes of the partnership and in accordance with the partnership agreement."  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">devolution by operation of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no express assignment of copyright by individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 35 , 196 (1).+  + section 196(1) of the copyright act 1968 (cth) provides: "copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."  breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.22">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">tax minimization scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.23">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.24">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">know-how</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.25">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">scope of protection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">contract of sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">requirement of notice specifying default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">party in breach to have opportunity to perform within time stipulated by notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">notice of default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">failure to pay balance of price and interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">tender of balance of price without interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">erroneous belief of purchaser in sufficiency of amount tendered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">notice of rescission for non-compliance with notice of default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">purchaser's suit for specific performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">whether ready and willing to perform</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.14">cited from="[1979] HCA 60">obligation to pay interest not interdependent with vendor's duty to convey.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">creditor's petition for sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">judgement debt previously ordered to be payable by instalments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">whether such order stays execution of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">whether petition defeated by such order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">whether debt within class of debts "payable either immediately or at a certain future time"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">bankruptcy act 1966 , ss. 40 , 41 , 44</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1977] FCA 12">district court act, 1973 (n.s.w.), ss. 85, 88. after obtaining judgment in the district court for $11,834.56 against the bankrupt, the petitioning creditor issued a bankruptcy notice, which was ignored by the bankrupt, thus constituting an act of bankruptcy. the bankrupt then obtained an order from the registrar, pursuant to s. 88 of the district court act, 1973 (n.s.w.), that the judgment debt be paid by instalments, after which the petitioning creditor filed a petition for a sequestration order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">final or interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of extension of time to proceed against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether civil right amounting to $3,000 involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">special leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">grounds for grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">judiciary act 1903-1960 (cth), s. 35 (1) (a).  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">third party insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">unidentified vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">extension of time to institute proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">considerations applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.15">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">review of exercise of discretion on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.16">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">right of further appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.17">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.18">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether second application lies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.19">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">traffic act 1925 (tas.), s. 65a*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.20">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">supreme court civil procedure act 1932 (tas.), s. 45 (b).  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.21">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">solicitor and client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.22">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">reliance by client on advice of solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.23">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether client may subsequently resile from decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.24">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action not brought within prescribed time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.25">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">application to extend time.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">specific performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">station property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">option</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">extension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">alleged failure to exercise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">conduct of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">alleged mis-representation by purchaser's agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">finding of trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">belated defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">practice of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">time, essence of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.14">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">treasurer's consent to sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.15">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">failure to obtain within period expressly provided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.16">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.17">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">"deemed to be cancelled"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.18">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">contract void, or voidable by one or both parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.19">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">contractual requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.20">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">continuation in employment on specified terms and conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.21">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">deed between purchaser and employees of vendor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.22">cited from="[1950] HCA 35">national security (economic organization) regulations, regs. 6 (1), (10), 10 (1).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 35A Transfer of proceedings to Family Court</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 40 Acts of bankruptcy</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 44 Conditions on which creditor may petition</title>
<title id="l6">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 52 Proceedings and order on creditor's petition</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 104 Registrars--additional provisions</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT (BANKRUPTCY) RULES 2005 </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT (BANKRUPTCY) RULES 2006 </title>
<title id="l13">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">saap v mimia (2005) 215 alr 162 ; mima v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 24 ; s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">circumstances in which prior statement may be information that is the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">fraud of agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether actions of agent amounted to fraud on the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether jurisdictional error   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether lack of detail in visa application amounted to adverse information in the form of omissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether tribunal failed in its obligation to provide particulars of information considered the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether a request for a personal identifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 559">whether appellant required to provide a personal identifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">requirements of notice of invitation to hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">"response to hearing invitation" form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">migration agent authorised recipient for the purposes of receiving correspondence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">non-appearance before the tribunal on the part of the applicant attributed by the applicant to the alleged dishonesty of migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">no evidence that migration agent acted dishonestly or fraudulently</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1086">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1146">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1146">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1146">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1146">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1146">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">application for review of a decision of the rrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">applicant a citizen of china claiming fear of persecution as a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 894">whether leave should be granted to extend the time for filing an application not made within 28 days of notification.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">application for review of decision of the rrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant the applicants protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">applicants are citizens of india claiming fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">where applicants did not attend the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1561">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">application for review of decision of the refugee review tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">where applicant did not attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">whether tribunal breached migration act 1958 (cth) s.425a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">whether tribunal breached migration act 1958 s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">whether tribunal breached migration act s.426a by failing to exercise its discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">whether tribunal made a finding for which there was no probative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">whether tribunal failed to deal with a claim that the applicant was a member of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">whether tribunal failed to afford common law procedural fairness by failing to give the applicant the opportunity to comment on adverse country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">amendments to migration act 1958 by migration legislation amendment act (no.1) (cth) came into force and had a retrospective effect on applications for review that had not been completed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">no jurisdictional error.practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1404">whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds for unwarranted delay.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">applicant claiming persecution in china as a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">applicant informed rrt that he did not have an agent or authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">applicant now asserting that he did have an agent who received correspondence and failed to pass it on</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">applicant failing to respond to hearing invitation or to attend a hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1370">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">applicant did not attend hearing before refugee review tribunal after completing 'response to hearing invitation' form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">applicant alleges that the signature on the completed 'response to hearing invitation' form is not his</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">whether refugee review tribunal breached s.426a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">applicant made inconsistent claims in his protection visa application and his application for review before the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1382">whether refugee review tribunal breached s.424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">applicant completed 'response to hearing invitation' form informing refugee review tribunal that he did not wish to attend hearing before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">applicant failed to attend hearing before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1360">whether refugee review tribunal breached s.424a(1) migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1135">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1135">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1135">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1135">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1135">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">application for review of decision of the refugee review tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">where applicant did not attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">allegation of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">no evidence of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">no obligation imposed on tribunal to make its own inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1191">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 951">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 951">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 951">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 951">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 951">application for review of decision of the refugee review tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 951">where applicant did not attend tribunal hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 634">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 634">review of the refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 634">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 634">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 634">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 715">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 715">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 715">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 715">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 715">application for review of decision of the refugee review tribunal affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 715">where applicant did not attend tribunal hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 547">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 547">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 547">refusal of protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 547">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 547">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 315">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 315">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 315">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 315">interlocutory dismissal of application as not disclosing an arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 315">s.424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) not breached where the rrt decision based upon an insufficiency of supportive information.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 559" id="cs0">The Minister supported the Federal Magistrate's conclusion (at [19]) that the deficiencies the delegate identified were not the reason for the Tribunal's refusal of the application. The Tribunal simply did not reach the required state of satisfaction. This, the Minister said, is consistent with a long line of authority (for example, SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] , SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [10] , SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] - [14], and SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 at [4] - [49]. The Minister also submitted that, in any event, the appellant's protection visa application is not information within the meaning of s 424A ( SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2007) 235 ALR 609 ; [2007] HCA 26 at [17] - [18]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1086" id="cs1">(See SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 (" SZEFM ") at [23], SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 (" SZEGX ") at [10], SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 (" SZCIA ") at [9]-[14], SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 (" SZBZO ") at [48]-[49].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1146" id="cs2">Ms Johnson, for the first respondent, contends that the reason for the Tribunal decision was simply a lack of detail in the applicant's claim. The Tribunal was unable to be satisfied with the veracity of her claims. However, its thought-processes do not fall under the scope of s.424A(1)(a): SZEFM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 [2006] FCA 78 at [23] per Bennett J; SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 per Moore J; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [12] per Allsop J; SZEZI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1195 at [29] per Allsop J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 894" id="cs3">Such reasoning does not engage s.424A of the Migration Act , and I am referred to the decisions, inter alia, of SZEFM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] , and SZEGX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [10] , SZCIA v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] - [14], and SZBZO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1561" id="cs4">(See SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 at [23] ; SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [10] ; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 at [9] to [14]; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 at [48] and [49]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1404" id="cs5">Section 426A is only enlivened if the applicant is invited under s.425 to appear before the Tribunal but does not (see SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [9] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1370" id="cs6">SZEGX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 166 (2 March 2006) per Moore J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1382" id="cs7">( SZEFM v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 per Bennett J at [23]; SZEGX v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 per Moore J at [10]; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 per Allsop J at [9]-[14]; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 per Jacobson at [48]-[49]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1360" id="cs8">The authorities referred to by the first respondent in his written submissions support that proposition and it is indeed correct ( SZEFM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 78 (Bennett J) at [23]; SZEGX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 (Moore J) at [10]; SZCIA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 238 (Allsop J) at [9-14]; SZBZO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 494 (Jacobson J) at [48-49].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1135" id="cs9">In a recent decision of Moore J in SZEGX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 166 , His Honour addressed what constitutes information that should be supplied to an applicant under s.424A.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1191" id="cs10">I refer to SZEFM v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 78 23 and also SZEGX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 at [10] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 951" id="cs11">I note that in SZEGX v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 166 , an appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court, a decision to which I am referred by the solicitor for the first respondent, there is a very helpful description in paragraph 9 of the operation of s.426A:

 Section 426A confers a discretionary power to proceed to decide the matter without further engagement with the applicant.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 634" id="cs12">In the recent decision of SZEGX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 166 , His Honour Moore J addressed what constitutes information that should be supplied to the applicant under s.424A of the Act .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 715" id="cs13"/>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 547" id="cs14">Ms Gray supplied the Court with the recent decision of SZEGX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 166 , where Moore J addresses what constitutes information that should be supplied to the applicant under the provisions of s.424A of the Act .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 315" id="cs15">The distinction has been reinforced by Moore J following the decision in SZEEU , in SZEGX v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 166 at [10] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2006] NSWSC 579">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2006] NSWSC 579">accounts and audit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2006] NSWSC 579">lodgment of financial reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2006] NSWSC 579">asic class order 98/1418</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2006] NSWSC 579">application for orders extending time retrospectively to remedy late lodgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2006] NSWSC 579">whether jurisdiction available where time period prescribed by class order</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] NSWSC 579" id="cs0">12 In Re Dana Australia (Holdings) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 355 ; (2006) 57 ACSR 99 , Finkelstein J held that a period specified in the ASIC class order issued under s.341 for the doing of an act specified in the class order was one that came within the words "the period for doing any act, matter or thing ... in relation to a corporation". He reasoned, in effect, that if ASIC has, in exercise of a statutory power, created an alternative regime of regulation applicable to corporations and imposed time limits as part of that regime, the s.1322(4)(d) power is attracted because the alternative regime not only applies to corporations but is sufficiently akin to a statutory regime to warrant treatment in the same way. Finkelstein J distinguished a regime created by class order of general application from one arising from a specific decision of ASIC in relation to a particular case, such as a decision under s.340.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 319 Lodgment of annual reports with ASIC</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 341 Exemption orders--class orders for companies, registered schemes and disclosing entities</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1322 Irregularities</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">order of australian industrial relations commission that industrial action stop, not occur and not be organised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">commission found that industrial action was happening</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">no finding as to whether industrial action threatened, impending or probable, or being organised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">mandatory duty to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether jurisdiction to make orders that industrial action stop and not be organised industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">order of australian industrial relations commission binding union registered solely under state law and not a transitionally registered association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether power to make order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether legislative intention to exclude rule that corporation is a person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether state-registered associations that are not transitionally registered associations fall outside scheme of legislation  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">form of australian industrial relations commission's order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">order expressed to bind officers, delegates and employees of union, whether involved with industrial action or not</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">order expressed to bind employees eligible to be members of union, whether members or not</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">no prior notice to anyone other than union that order sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">requirements of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether union represents interests of employees administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">parts of order of australian industrial relations commission beyond jurisdiction, other parts within jurisdiction, whether other parts affected by jurisdictional error unclear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">period for which order operated expired</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">no real possibility of proceedings for contravention of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether futile to grant mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether certiorari should be granted as stand-alone remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 26">whether court should attempt to separate valid from invalid elements of order in abstract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.11  telecommunications act 1975 , s.43a  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">original jurisdiction of the high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">whether "the commonwealth, or a person . . . sued on behalf of the commonwealth" is a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">commonwealth trading bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">agency of government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">emanation of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">commonwealth banks act 1959-1966 (cth) (no. 5 of 1959</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">no. 93 of 1966)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">reserve bank act 1959-1966 (cth) (no. 4 of 1959</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">no. 93 of 1966)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1969] HCA 44">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 75 (iii.).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 14 Manner in which Court may be constituted</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l8">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l9">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l10">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l11">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 192 General power to obtain information</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">whether matters complained of reasonably capable of conveying imputations to ordinary reasonable reader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">primary judge erred in striking out imputations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">ordinary reasonable reader would read the matters complained of in the sense for which the claimant contended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">8 out of 10 causes of action restored</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 6">observations concerning judicial obligation to give reasons. (d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 52">favell v queensland newspapers pty ltd  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 52">pleading and practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 52">application for summary judgment or alternatively to strike out part of a pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 52">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 52">whether matter published capable of conveying defamatory imputations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">regie nationale des usines renault sa v zhang  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">allegedly negligent design and manufacture overseas of motor vehicle by foreign company registered, but not carrying on business, in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">continuing damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action commenced in new south wales supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">supreme court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether exercise of discretion miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">relationship between supreme court rules authorising orders declining jurisdiction and judicial decisions on forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether supreme court a clearly inappropriate forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">relevance of circumstance that foreign law is to be applied as the lex causae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether discretion to grant stay of proceedings should be re-exercised.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">allegedly negligent design and manufacture overseas of motor vehicle by foreign company registered, but not carrying on business, in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">continuing damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether french law would be the lex causae applied in a trial in new south wales -whether australian common law should recognise the lex loci delicti as the substantive law to be applied in actions for torts committed in a foreign law area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether the "double actionability" rule applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether a single choice of law rule should be adopted consistently in australia in respect of both international and intranational torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether "flexible exception" applies to recognition of lex causae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether public policy exceptions applicable to lex causae .  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">requirements as to pleadings of applicant on a stay motion seeking to rely upon a foreign lex causae .  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">cause of action arising out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action brought in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.30">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">plaintiff alleges defective design and manufacture of the motor vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.31">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">defendants not present in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.32">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">plaintiff relies on "long arm" provision in supreme court rules and damage in jurisdiction to found action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.33">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">application by defendants for stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.34">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">applicable law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.35">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.36">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">forum non conveniens .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">dow jones  company inc v gutnick  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">internet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">computer server</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of housed on computer server in united states of america</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">uploaded to world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">viewable at subscription news site on world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">downloaded to computer in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">whether material complained of was published in victoria.  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">single publication rule.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">law of the place of the tort ( lex loci delicti )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">damage to reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">where material complained of was published</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of made comprehensible when downloaded in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">place of plaintiff's reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victorian law governs substantive rights.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service permitted without leave of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">conditions of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of tort committed in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of damage suffered in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action limited to damage to reputation in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service validly effected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victoria a convenient forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 1022">imputations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 1022">capacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 1022">form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 1022">ridicule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">john pfeiffer pty limited v rogerson  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">negligent act committed and damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">action commenced in australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether double actionability rule is a choice of law rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether double actionability rule applies to proceedings in federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether a single choice of law rule should be adopted consistently in both federal and non-federal jurisdiction in all courts in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether the lex fori or lex loci delicti is applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">the lex loci delicti governs torts committed in australia which have an interstate element.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">substance and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">distinction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">matters of substance bear upon existence or enforceability of remedies rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">limitations on type and quantum of damages are substantive not procedural.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">limitation provisions barring either right or remedy are substantive not procedural.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">full faith and credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">effect of s 118 of the constitution upon common law choice of law rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether a single choice of law rule should be adopted consistently in both federal and non-federal jurisdiction in all courts in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">effect of ch iii of the constitution upon common law.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2000] HCA 36">whether pt 5 of the workers compensation act 1987 (nsw) limits the amount of economic and non-economic loss recoverable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 50">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 50">imputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 50">newspaper report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 50">statement that after police investigation person arrested and expected to be charged with certain offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 50">whether capable of imputing guilt of offences charged.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2011] WASC 251">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2011] WASC 251">application to strike out indorsement to writ</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2011] WASC 251">whether defence of triviality available for statements made in private email</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2011] WASC 251">whether statements to mental health clinic capable of communicating a defamatory meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2011] WASC 251">qualified privilege and malice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2011] WASC 251">turns on its own facts  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2011] WASC 251">whether public interest immunity applied to patient notes held by area health service forming part of the department of health</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">publication of a facsimile in all states of australia and the australian capital territory by a company conveying defamatory innuendos about persons associated with a competitor business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">publication of a 'whistleblower' letter to the australian taxation office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">publication of an email to two officers of the principal supplier of the competitor business located in the special administrative region of hong kong and in another location within the people's republic of china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">availability of presumption as to the law, if any, in respect of defamation in the special administrative region of hong kong and elsewhere in the people's republic of china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">availability of defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1625">claims for defamation run in parallel with claims for representations said to constitute misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] WASC 251" id="cs0">38 The first consideration concerns the application of well established authorities on striking out pleadings as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or on the other grounds referred to in O 20 r 19 RSC. In particular, the principles identified by Master Staples in Kimberley Downs Pty Ltd v Western Australia (Unreported, WASC, Library No 6414, 25 August 1986) remain good law, although they no doubt fall to be applied according to the case management objectives enshrined in O 1 r 4A and r 4B; and see, for example, Kirika v Zurich Australian Insurance Ltd [2002] WASCA 233. In particular, O 20 r 19 is intended to only apply to cases that are not really arguable. In an application to strike out an action in defamation on the ground that the statements alleged were not defamatory of the plaintiff, the task of the court is only to decide whether it is open to the trier of fact to find that ordinary reasonable people would have understood the matter complained of in the defamatory sense pleaded: National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Ltd v Nielsen  Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1386 ; (2006) 156 FCR 148. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1625" id="cs1">Insofar as the applicant's case relies upon the assertion that the publications were defamatory, that, in the circumstances of this case, becomes a question of fact for me as the trial judge to determine. The question as to whether the publications were capable of giving rise to the defamatory imputations pleaded has already been addressed (see National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia) Pty Ltd v Nielsen  Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1386 ; (2006) 156 FCR 148). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 42 Decision of questions.</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 44 Staff of Tribunal.</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 50 Mergers.</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 53 False representations.</title>
<title id="l6">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 55 Misleading conduct to which Industrial Property Convention applies.</title>
<title id="l7">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 60 Coercion at place of residence.</title>
<title id="l8">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l9">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 42 Reference of certain questions to Products Safety Committee</title>
<title id="l10">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 44 Method of notifying safety warning notices</title>
<title id="l11">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 50 Information standards</title>
<title id="l12">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 55 Provision of information to consumers</title>
<title id="l13">Defamation Act 1974 No 18 </title>
<title id="l14">WRONGS ACT 1958 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">payments by the lutheran church to indigenous workers at below-award wages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">state of queensland calculated and paid grants for such below-award wages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">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="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">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="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">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="cp2.6">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="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">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="cp2.12">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="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">strikeout application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether s 31a federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) applies to proceedings commenced before operation of section</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">breach of contract claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether subsequent grievance procedure formed part of contract of employment and applied to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether statements made at time of termination made in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether unconscionable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether, if federal claims struck out, jurisdiction for defamation claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 266">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 266">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 266">recruitment agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 266">whether instructions given to halt recruitment process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 266">interpretation of emails</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 266">objective test.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1461">human rights and discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1461">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under the federal court act of australia 1976 (cth) and federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1461">whether applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1461">whether applicant has failed to prosecute the proceedings with due diligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1461">whether proceedings are an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 647">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 647">discrimination on the ground of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 647">applicant arrested for trespass at university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 647">neither arrests nor other police conduct influenced by applicant's race</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 647">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 611">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 611">motion for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 611">alleged estoppels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 611">abuse of process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 473">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 473">application for summary judgment for an applicant in relation to part of a proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 473">consideration of "no reasonable prospect of successfully defending" and of "part of the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 473">limited utility of principles relating to verdicts by direction when assessing whether a respondent has a reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding or any part of the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">appeal from summary judgment by single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">section 31a(2) of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">application concerning alleged racial discrimination brought under human rights and equal opportunity commission act 1986 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">whether appropriate to assess evidence on motion for summary dismissal held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">appropriate to assess evidence on motion for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">evidence does not support allegation of racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 176">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1788">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1788">application for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1788">where applicant alleged breaches of racial discrimination act 1975 and disability discrimination act 1992</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1788">where applicant previously commenced proceedings in industrial relations commission and administrative decisions tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1788">whether applicant's allegations covered by deed of release</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1788">whether reasonable prospect of success.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">summary dismissal application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">claim of racial discrimination in conduct of arresting police</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">court not satisfied that no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">application refused.human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">applicant with history of refusing to pay costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1033">security and stay ordered.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 765" id="cs0">In Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875 , another summary dismissal case under s 31A(2) , Tamberlin J said at [14]:
 '... it is essential that the Court must be careful not to do an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings, or denying an applicant an opportunity to ventilate their case. ...'

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 266" id="cs1">Having said that, it remains the case that: the court should approach an application for summary dismissal with caution: Dandaven v Harbeth Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 955 at [6] ; summary judgment should not be granted if there is a genuine factual dispute between the parties, including disputes about matters of fact and degree: Boston at [45] and Dandaven at [6]; and as was said in Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875: the court must be careful not to do an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings, or denying an applicant an opportunity to ventilate their case. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1461" id="cs2">

24 Although there has been debate about whether the word "may" in s 31A(2) vests in the Court a power conditional on certain facts being found or discretion (see, for example, Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd v Ford Motor Company of Australia Ltd (2008) 167 FCR 372 ; [2008] FCAFC 60 at [127] --- [128] and JF Keir Pty Ltd v Sparks [2008] FCA 611 at [12] ), certain aspects of the operation of the provision are clear. First, s 31A(3) , in terms, discloses that s 31A(2) involves a less stringent test than that applicable at common law for summary dismissal. Secondly, and as Rares J observed in Boston Commercial Services Pty Ltd v GE Capital Finance Australasia Pty Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 720 ; [2006] FCA 1352 at [46] , " s 31A regulates the attainment of justice by creating an entitlement in a party to be protected from claims or defences which fail to meet the threshold prescribed in the section". Thirdly, and again as Rares J said in Boston Commercial Services at [45], "in assessing what reasonable prospects of success are for the purposes of s 31A , the court must be very cautious not to do a party an injustice by summarily dismissing the proceedings where... contested evidence might reasonably be believed one way or the other so as to enable one side or the other to succeed. As soon as the evidence may have such an ambivalent character prior to a final determination, I am of opinion that then, as a matter of law, at that point there are reasonable prospects of success within the meaning of s 31A. Unless only one conclusion can be said to be reasonable, the moving party will not have discharged its onus to enliven the discretion to authorise a summary termination of the proceedings which s 31A envisages". This is consistent with the statement by Tamberlin J in Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875 at [14] that "... it is essential that the Court must be careful not to do an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings, or denying an applicant an opportunity to ventilate their case ...". Fourthly, and as Lindgren J noted in White Industries Aust Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 160 FCR 298 ; [2007] FCA 511 at [50] , s 31A "is concerned with the bringing and defending of proceedings, not just with pleadings; with substance, not just with form".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 647" id="cs3">Her first general argument implied that the police were complicit in racially discriminatory policies or actions on the part of the University officials, which had led her to take peaceful protest action at the Chancellery, and to refuse to comply with University requests that she leave its premises. However, there is no evidence of any communications between University officials and the police which did anything more than confirm her trespasses at the Chancellery on each occasion. Moreover, Mrs Paramasivam has never been able to establish any discriminatory conduct by the University, and her attempt to establish this was summarily dismissed (see: Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875 , and Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCAFC 176). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 611" id="cs4">14 In Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875 , another summary dismissal case under s 31A(2) , Tamberlin J said at [14]:
 '... it is essential that the Court must be careful not to do an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings, or denying an applicant an opportunity to ventilate their case. ...' </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 473" id="cs5">14 In Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875 , another summary dismissal case under s 31A(2) , Tamberlin J said at [14]:
 ... it is essential that the Court must be careful not to do an injustice by summarily dismissing proceedings, or denying an applicant an opportunity to ventilate their case. ... </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 176" id="cs6">1 Ms Paramasivam appeals from a decision of Tamberlin J of 19 June 2007: Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875. His Honour summarily dismissed an application made under s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (the HREOC Act) by which Ms Paramasivam complained that the University of New South Wales (UNSW) had racially discriminated against her, contrary to s 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (the RDA).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1788" id="cs7">
It has been accepted by the Federal Court that, as articulated by Lindgren J in White Industries Australia Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 511 at [54] :

 "Under s.31A I must be satisfied that the applicants have no reasonable prospect of success, but as s.31A makes clear, this does not mean that I must be satisfied that the proceeding is hopeless or bound to fail. I suggest that the legislature's intention was to lower the bar for summary dismissal below the level that had been fixed. "

See also Paramasivam v University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875 at [14] ; Genovese v BGC Construction Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 875 at [5] per Gilmour J; Australian and International Pilots Association v Qantas Airways Ltd [2006] FCA 1441 at [23] per Tracey J. Support can also be found for the statement of French J in Fortron Automotive Treatments Pty Ltd v Jones (No 2) [2006] FCA 1401 , where his Honour disagreed with Heerey J's view in Duncan v Lipscombe Child Care Services Inc [2006] FCA 458 that "[s]ection 31A was introduced to establish a lower standard for strikeouts". French J considered that s.31A "allows for "judgment" or nothing" at [21]; see also JT Nominees Pty Ltd v Macks [2007] SASC 151 at [81] per Bleby J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1033" id="cs8">They are described in the judgment of Tamberlin J in Paramasivam v The University of New South Wales [2007] FCA 875 , which refers to a fuller description given by Sully J in Paramasivam v The University of New South Wales and Others [2006] NSWSC 1189 at [13] and following.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l2">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l3">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 9 Racial discrimination to be unlawful</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l6">CRIMES (SENTENCING PROCEDURE) ACT 1999 - SECT 10 Dismissal of charges and conditional discharge of offender</title>
<title id="l7">INCLOSED LANDS PROTECTION ACT 1901 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>