Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">roncevich v repatriation commission  repatriation pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether injury arose out of or was attributable to defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether attendance at mess function compulsory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether attendance at mess function constituted defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">applicant injured as a result of falling from window due to intoxication.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">tribunal of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether administrative appeals tribunal gave reasons which conformed to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">sufficiency of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether perverse findings of fact constitute an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">jurisdiction of federal court to disturb perverse findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether returning matter to the administrative appeals tribunal would be futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether high court should substitute a finding on the facts.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">interpretation of beneficial provisions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">commonwealth employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">work related function at naval base</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">consumption of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">riding motorcycle under the influence of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">injured whilst travelling between "place of work" and "place of residence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">injured within naval base</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">meaning of "place of work"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">"serious and wilful" misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">"serious and permanent impairment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">decision set aside.  safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] AATA 436">ss4(1) , 4 (13), 5 (2)(b), 6 (1)(b),(1a), (2), (3), 14 (3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 21">workers' compensation (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 21">injury arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 21">injury during interval occurring within overall period of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 21">sightseeing tour organized by employer on workers' day off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 21">workers compensation act 1987 (nsw), s. 4 "injury".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">whether employee injured on a journey from his employment or from his place of employment whether conclusion that employee's attendance at a mess party to a certain hour was incidental to employment was only conclusion open to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">whether finding that kind of transport used by the employee was not open to the tribunal  compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971, ss. 7(2), 27(1), 32, 33  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 , s.44  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">commonwealth employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">member of australian regular army</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">attendance at mess party at regimental depot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">death resulting from injuries sustained when travelling from regimental depot to home</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">normal route</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">whether employee injured on journey from employment or from place of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">disallowance of widow's claim for compensation by delegate of commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">whether participation in mess party after certain time was "in the course of employment" or "incidental to employment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">whether employee's vehicle was "of a kind that the employee could . . . have been reasonably expected to use"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth), ss 7(2), 27(1), 32(1), 33</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1983] FCA 307">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), s. 44. sections 32 and 33 of the compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971, so far as relevant, provide:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1">commonwealth employees' entitlement to compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1">employment related injury, disability or disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1">arising out of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1">meaning of s 6(1)(a) of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1">defence forces</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1">compensation for injuries and other civil actions</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1" id="cs0">32 The respondent's reliance upon cases such as Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA 21 ; (1992) 173 CLR 473 , Danvers v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1969] HCA 64 ; (1969) 122 CLR 529 and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Clark [2006] FCA 306 was said to be misconceived because those cases dealt with 'in the course of employment' rather than 'arising out of employment', and in any case, were concerned with injuries which occurred in an interval or interlude within an overall period of work, rather than in intervals between such periods, as here. The respondent's reliance upon Repatriation Commission v Tuite [1993] FCA 39 ; (1993) 39 FCR 540 and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Wall [2005] FCAFC 127 ; (2006) 88 ALD 1 was said to be misplaced as those cases concerned factors/incidents which occurred in the course of employment and which were held to have actually influenced the self-harming behaviour (smoking) which led, in turn, to injury. Furthermore, the respondent's reliance on Darling Island Stevedoring  Lighterage Co Ltd v Hankinson [1967] HCA 10 ; (1967) 117 CLR 19 was also said to be misplaced because it deals with 'a different problem in causation'. Finally, the decision in Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch [1964] HCA 34 ; (1964) 110 CLR 626 was said to support the applicant's, rather than the respondent's, case. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 593">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 593">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 593">refusal of a business visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 593">tribunal not satisfied that the principal applicant had an ownership interest in a main business in australia at the time of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 593">whether the tribunal erred in considering whether the main business of the applicant had changed considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 593">whether the decision was independently supported by the finding on the lack of an ownership interest considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">judicial review of decision of migration review tribunal refusing grant of business skills visa for breach of business operation limitation condition prescribed by regulation attaching to visa held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">finding that applicant had not complied substantially with visa condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">visa refused because appellant conducted more than two "main businesses"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">meaning of "main business"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">meaning of "business"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">visa also refused because appellant did not continue to meet visa criteria between application and final decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">appellant did not have an ownership interest in a main business at the time of the tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">meaning of "continues"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 189">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">x v the commonwealth  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">appellant discharged from army on account of hiv-positive status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">discrimination admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">discrimination alleged to be lawful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">appellant alleged to be unable to carry out the inherent requirements of the particular employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">meaning of "inherent requirements of the particular employment" in s 15(4)(a) of the disability discrimination act 1992 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether appellant "unable" to perform inherent requirements with reasonable safety.  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">infectious disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether s 48 of the disability discrimination act 1992 (cth) provides an exclusive code for determining whether discrimination on account of an infectious disease is lawful.  discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">"combat duties" and "combat-related duties"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether s 53 of the disability discrimination act 1992 (cth) provides an exclusive code for determining whether discrimination in relation to "combat duties" and "combat-related duties" is lawful.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">application for order of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1999] HCA 63">whether applicant must show a different result was inevitable or merely open if no error was made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1316">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1316">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1316">decision to refuse preferential family visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1316">whether applicant lived in same country as "overseas near relative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1316">status of children.   migration (1989) regulations, reg9 "non-dependent child"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">appeal from decision setting aside determination of commissioner for employee's compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">whether stress at work aggravated the respondent's coronary artery disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">whether commonwealth v. beattie correctly decided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">the distinction between the pathology and symptoms of a disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">the basis on which a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal may be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">the function of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">whether the respondent suffered from a compensable incapacity.  compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">ss.26, 29  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 240">ss.43 , 44</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">overpayment of supporting mother's benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">jurisdiction of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">whether relevant decision by director-general of social services to claim repayment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">meaning of "decision" under the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">question whether weight is to be given to the fact of the minister's decision as distinct from reasons for it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">relevance of government policy.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">weight of evidence in tribunal  migration act, 1973(cth) s.13(a)  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) s.37(1) , s. 44 (1)  immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">review of decision by administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">whether weight is to be given to fact of minister's decision as distinct from reasons for it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">relevance of government policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">migration act 1958 cth), s. 13 (a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), ss. 37 (1), 44 (1).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">appeal based on weight of evidence before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 147">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), ss. 37 (1), 44 (1). on an appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal affirming a deportation order made by the minister for immigration the appellant argued that: (1) the decision of the tribunal was against the evidence or the weight of the evidence, and that the decison was unreasonable in all the circumstances; and (2) that the tribunal erred in giving weight to an irrelevant decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">application to review decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">cancellation of business skills visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 914">meaning of " business " and " eligible business " in s.134 of the migration act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 323">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 323">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 323">whether tribunal failed to comply with s.424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) or to take into account corroborative material in a manner constituting jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 185">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 185">power of the administrative appeals tribunal under s 41(2) administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) to order a stay or otherwise affect the operation or implementation of a decision and under s 35 to make confidentiality orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 185">where the decision is a banning order under s 920a of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 185">where the effect of the decision is to trigger publication obligations of the australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 185">where stay and confidentiality orders by the administrative appeals tribunal prevent the australian securities and investments commission from satisfying those obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 185">whether administrative appeals tribunal exceeded its power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1157">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1157">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1157">whether refugee review tribunal's decision affected by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1157">whether the refugee review tribunal failed to consider all claims made by the applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1157">whether the refugee review tribunal misconstrued evidence of the first applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1157">whether the refugee review tribunal erred in its consideration of effective state protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1157">whether the refugee review tribunal's findings were illogical.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 914" id="cs0">It is the case that in Nassif Branson J concluded (as pointed out in Liang at [15]) that it was " not a characteristic of the meaning of the word "business" that a business could only be carried on by one legal entity " . Jagot J summarised the relevant findings in Nassif and Liang in Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1328 (at [27]) as follows: ...In Nassif Branson J found that the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the identification of the business because it treated that description as necessarily involving a single entity only. While the applicant in that case had identified one business name in the application form the accompanying documents showed his involvement in numerous companies. His submissions contended that the applicant's business was transacted through at least four companies. Branson J found that the Tribunal erred by failing to deal with the applicant's case as put on the basis that a business may involve more than one legal entity. In Liang Logan J held that a single legal entity may conduct more than one business. Neither case turned on a conclusion that the Tribunal had taken into account irrelevant considerations. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 323" id="cs1">Thus, while a Tribunal's failure to reach an express conclusion about the authenticity of corroborative documents and how they might be weighed against other evidence could in some circumstances constitute a jurisdictional error as a failure to " engage " with a claim (see SZLGP ), in this case it did not impact on the result of the decision in a manner constituting jurisdictional error in the sense considered in Craig v The State of South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 ; [1995] HCA 58 (see Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1328 at [38] ) . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 185" id="cs2"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1157" id="cs3">In any event, I accept the submission by counsel for the First Respondent, that effective state protection was a finding independent of the Tribunal's findings and conclusion that the applicants' fear was not well-founded and that the Applicant did not face a real chance of persecution if he were to return to Fiji for any Convention related reason. Further, I accept the submission of counsel for the First Respondent that, even if the Tribunal had committed an error in relation to its consideration of effective state protection, it was immaterial to the Tribunal's ultimate conclusion, as referred to above, and is therefore within jurisdiction ( Ibrahim v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1328 at [10] - [14]). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 134 Cancellation of business visas</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l5">SUPREME COURT ACT </title>
<title id="l6">SUPREME COURT ACT - SECT 69 Injunctions and receivers</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether notice given by landlord containing new rental assessment valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether notice unequivocal and did not leave reasonable recipient in doubt as to meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether reasonable recipient credited with knowledge of terms of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether subjective reaction of recipient of notice relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether landlord's assessment required to be reasonable and not excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether an implied duty of good faith trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">provision of assessment of proper rent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether provision of assessment caused applicant's loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether individual under a "special disadvantage" practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">amendment to pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether claim adequately pleaded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">whether amendment should be allowed after conclusion of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] FCA 219">relevance of strength of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">ownership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">equitable owner or licensee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">terms of oral contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">necessary for reasonable and effective operation of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">unjustified threats   contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">oral contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">post contractual conduct    equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">statutory requirement of writing   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1018">departure from pleadings during trial</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1018" id="cs0">During the course of the trial, the issues raised by the pleadings were not the issues pressed by the parties and, in particular, did not reflect the case as finally advanced by the applicants. However, the respondent consented to this departure from the pleadings. Generally, it is preferable that particulars be amended, "particularly is this so when the action finally determines the rights of the parties in the cause of action", as in the instant case: Leotta v Public Transport Commission (NSW) (1976) 9 ALR 437 at 446 per Stephen, Mason, Jacobs JJ; Australian Medic-Care Co Ltd v Hamilton Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd (No 5 ) [2008] FCA 1979 at [15] per Finn J. However, judgment can be given on the facts as they have emerged during the trial, despite a failure to amend pleadings, where the new issue or new way of particularising the existing issue emerges at the trial and is litigated: Water Board v Moustakas [1988] HCA 12 ; (1988) 180 CLR 491 at 497 per Mason CJ, Wilson, Brennan and Dawson JJ; Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70 ; (1982) 148 CLR 658 at 664 per Murphy, Wilson, Brennan, Deane and Dawson JJ; North East Equity Pty Ltd v Proud Nominees Pty Ltd (No 3) [2008] FCA 1430 at [4] per Rares J . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 119 Litigation</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 121 Loss of client legal privilege: generally</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 122 Loss of client legal privilege: consent and related matters</title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 123 Loss of client legal privilege: defendants</title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 124 Loss of client legal privilege: joint clients</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 125 Loss of client legal privilege: misconduct</title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 126 Loss of client legal privilege: related communications and documents</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1623">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1623">timetable for filing evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1623">extension sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1623">prejudice to opposite party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1623">extension refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] QSC 164">(defendant) file no: sc no 2570 of 2005 division: trial division proceeding: civil originating court: supreme court of queensland delivered on: 13 july 2007 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 12, 13 and 14 june 2007 judge: fryberg j order: judgment for the defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">contract for provision of an olive oil processing line</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">purported termination for breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">alleged failure to comply with contract specifications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">no failure outside scope of repair or replacement clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">held termination not validly invoked.   contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">acceptance by electronic mail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">effect of electronic contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">formation of an electronic contract in relational contract settings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">consideration of postal rule and instantaneous communication form rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">held contract made at place where acceptance was received.   contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">application of international law to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">contract between australian and german companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">united nations convention on contracts for the international sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">incorporation of an international convention into victorian law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">sale of goods (vienna convention) act 1987 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">express contractual exclusion of the application of the international convention to the contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">held exclusion permissible.   trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">warranties in agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">representations as to future matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">implied representations that respondent had an intention to carry out contractual promises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">whether if false may constitute misleading or deceptive conduct per se</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">held respondent had a genuine intention to fulfil its contractual obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">held respondent had reasonable grounds for making representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">held no misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">trade practices act 1974 (cth) ss 51a, 52 , 87    contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">particular terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.28">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">withdrawal clauses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.29">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">provision for purchaser to seek reduction in price or withdrawal from contract each after allowance of a reasonable period of grace</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.30">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">separate obligation and entitlement of vendor to repair or replace within a reasonable period of time goods not compliant with contractual specifications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.31">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">construction and reconciliation of such terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.32">citing from="[2009] FCA 522">held period which constituted reasonable period of grace must necessarily be beyond reasonable time for effecting repair or replacement.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">application to re-open case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">leave to re-open case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">principles involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">circumstances when leave should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">leave to re-open case granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 82">material witness not reasonably available to party at closure of case</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 522" id="cs0">Mr Lorenz was not initially a witness whom Flottweg proposed to call. After the expiry of the time fixed by direction for the filing of evidence in chief and for that matter after Olivaylle had closed its case, Flottweg made application for leave to file an affidavit made by him upon which, as events transpired, he came to be cross-examined. For reasons which I gave in the course of the trial, I permitted Flottweg to adduce evidence from him: Olivaylle Pty Limited v Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA (No 3) [2008] FCA 572 ; (2008) 76 IPR 152. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 82" id="cs1">An example of a case where leave to reopen was granted to a party, notwithstanding a deliberate tactical decision on the part of that party's representatives, initially, not to call the witness concerned, is to be found in an interlocutory judgment delivered by me in Olivaylle Pty Limited v Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA (No 3) [2008] FCA 572 at paras 19 --- 27 (which is presently the subject of a reserved judgment in respect of the substantive issues). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l2">FAIR TRADING ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">Fair Trading Act 1999 - SECT 9 Application of Australian Consumer Law</title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 10 </title>
<title id="l6">LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND TORTFEASORS' CONTRIBUTION) ACT 1947 </title>
<title id="l7">LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND TORTFEASORS' CONTRIBUTION) ACT 1947 - SECT 7 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">whether tribunal failed to consider claim to persecution made by the appellant by reason of desertion from the army</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">claim not subsumed in the more general claim to persecution by reason of former membership in that army</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">appeal allowed practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">leave to speak on behalf of appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">in interest of effective, efficient and expeditious disposal of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 394">leave granted in unusual circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">application to replace applicant in claimant application under s 66b of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">whether applicant no longer authorised by native title claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">whether persons bringing application authorised by claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising under it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1481">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1481">leave for unqualified advocate to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1481">power of court to make the order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1481">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1481">not in interest of effective, efficient and expeditious disposal of the proceedings to grant leave for unqualified advocate to appear costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1481">tax and thereafter payable forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1481">general considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 754">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 754">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 754">statutory provision which creates an entitlement, is expressed to apply to pre-existing cases and is introduced by "despite section 92(2) and subsection (1)"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 754">"despite" as modern synonym of "notwithstanding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 754">whether "despite" specification limits the provision to cases of kinds contemplated by the specified sections or ensures its operation in all cases including those contemplated by those sections</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">jurisdiction, practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">general principles and guidelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">s 43(1)(b) of the district court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">exercise of the court's discretion to permit or refuse leave to a lay advocate to appear for an unrepresented litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">rights of audience of unqualified persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">mckenzie friend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">power of court to regulate proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">whether s 43(1)(b) of the district court act is a law for the 'peace, welfare and good government' of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">whether s 43(1)(b) transgresses an implied constitutional right to procedural equality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 230">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">attorney-general v oates  companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">commencement of prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">indictable offences against companies (western australia) code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">application of corporations law, s 1316</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">time period between conduct alleged to give rise to offences and commencement of prosecution in excess of five years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">whether prosecution must be commenced within five years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">whether consent of minister always necessary to commence prosecution if five years has elapsed.  criminal law and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">indictable offences against companies (western australia) code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">prosecution of offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">commencement of prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">whether prosecution must be commenced within five years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 35">whether consent of minister always necessary to commence prosecution if five years has elapsed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">accident compensation (n.t.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">motor accident compensation scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">compensation without fault</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">amount of recoverable damages limited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">insurer empowered to require recipient of benefit to sue person responsible for accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">power prefaced by words "notwithstanding anything in this act"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">whether requirement to sue suspended limitation on damages in action brought in compliance with requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">motor accidents (compensation) act 1979 (n.t.), ss. 4, 5, 41(3).  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">act committed in ter ritory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">territory statute imposing limits on amount of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">action in state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">no limit on amount of damages under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">whether law of place of tortious act or of forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">the constitution (63 and 64 vict c 12), ss. 118 , 122</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">motor accidents (compensation) act 1979 (n.t.), ss. 4, 5, 41(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">state an d territorial laws and records recognition act 1901 (cth), s. 18.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">conflict of laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">full faith and credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">whether state court required to give full faith and credit to territory statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">whether law of territory a law of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">inconsistency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.25">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">the constitution (63 and 64 vict c 12), ss. 109 , 118</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.26">cited from="[1988] HCA 41">state and terri torial laws and records recognition act 1901 (cth), s. 18.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">representation in human rights proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">application in a case for a non-lawyer to appear on behalf of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">factors in relation to non-lawyers appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">complexity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">whether proceedings founded in industrial relations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">whether evidence of harassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">nature of victimisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">victimisation both criminal and civil</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">nature of unjustifiable hardship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">difficulties of self-represented party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">non-lawyer an industrial agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">requirements for registration as an industrial agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">non-lawyer's qualifications and experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">applicability of non-lawyer industrial agent's professional indemnity insurance and code of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">availability of disciplinary measures against non-lawyer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">whether lay advocate has a duty to the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">protection of client and opponent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">advocate as witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">whether inappropriate for non-lawyer to appear.  human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">alleged unlawful disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">citing from="[2010] FMCA 843">application for non-lawyer to appear for applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1204">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1204">creditors petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1204">application by a mckenzie friend to appear for respondent debtor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1204">leave granted limited to adjournment application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1204">application for adjournment to allow the appearance of an expert witness to address court on alleged "syntax fraud" in petition documentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1204">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1204">status of funds deposited at offices of the legal representatives of the applicant by respondent debtor.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 843" id="cs0">Mr King was granted leave to appear as a non-lawyer in the industrial matter of Hadgkiss v Aldin , [67] in which it was held that: 12. ... I accept that this present case could be complex, certainly from the perspective of the seventy-second respondent, a carpenter by trade.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1204" id="cs1">The issue of the appearance of lay advocates was considered in the by Nicholson J in Hadgkiss v Aldin [2006] FCA 1638 at [10] where His Honour stated: [10] The powers of the Court pursuant to s 23 of the Federal Court Act to make orders granting leave for an unqualified advocate to appear were reviewed by Bennett J in Melaleuca of Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd v Duck [2005] FCA 1481 (Melaleuca). It is not necessary here to set out again the other Rules and considerations to which her Honour made reference. She particularly had regard to the decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Damjanovic v Maley [2002] NSWCA 230 ; (2002) 55 NSWLR 149 (Damjanovic) , where their Honours found that there was nothing exceptional or special to warrant the grant of such leave.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] VSCA 131" id="cs2">There are too the developments in this area of the law in England, which are encapsulated in Lord Lowry's eight part categorisation of the cases in Hanlon v The Law Society [15] (of which one is "where a statutory provision permits exceptions to be made to it by regulations" [16] ). And I note that in John Ward v Commissioner of Police [17] Moore J of the Federal Court of Australia referred to the Hanlon analysis with apparent albeit qualified approval. I also agree with the judge below that, just as when a section of an Act of Parliament expresses itself as being subject to another section of the Act it may be taken as meaning that the latter is to some extent intended to prevail, [18] so too when a section of an Act of Parliament expresses itself as subject to regulations it may be taken as meaning that the latter is to some extent intended to prevail. Most importantly, however, the fundamental question is whether the regulations are within the scope of the section, [19] and as a matter of logic and common sense one can hardly come to a view about that without first looking to the regulations to which the section expresses itself to be subject. 29 The appellants argue that that is a false analogy.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l5">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l6">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 854 Representation of parties before the Court or the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l7">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS (INDUSTRIAL AGENTS) REGULATIONS 1997 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">liquidator seeking directions from court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">jurisdiction and power of court to finally determine creditors' competing claims   trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">interest of creditors in mortgage investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">fiduciary obligation of investment companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">whether tracing possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">intermingling of funds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">whether declarations of trust effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">priority of investors over unsecured creditors  hearing  melbourne, 6-10 december 1993</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2011] WASC 122">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2011] WASC 122">costs on discontinuing application under s511(1) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2011] WASC 122">turns on own facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">court appointed liquidator's application for directions under s 479(3) of the corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">jurisdiction of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">whether the court is entitled to give directions where the questions relate to disputed claims against a third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">whether the court in its discretion should give directions where the questions relate to disputed claims against a third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">questions going to issue whether company in liquidation entitled to indemnify itself out of trust assets that it holds on trust for unit trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">relevance of adversarial nature of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">finding that court has jurisdiction and should give directions sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">limitation on findings to those necessary to give a direction on whether liquidator justified in administering the winding up on basis that company executed guarantee at trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">application granted and directions given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">s 479(3) of the corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">judge : robson j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 15 june and 6 august 2009 date of judgment : 17 august 2009 case may be cited as : re mento developments (aust) pty ltd medium neutral citation : [2009] vsc 343 amended 18 august 2009</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">court appointed liquidator's application for directions under s 479(3) of the corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">jurisdiction of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">whether the court is entitled to give directions where the questions relate to disputed claims against a third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">whether the court in its discretion should give directions where the questions relate to disputed claims against a third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">questions going to issue whether company in liquidation entitled to indemnify itself out of trust assets that it holds on trust for unit trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">relevance of adversarial nature of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">finding that court has jurisdiction and should give directions sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">limitation on findings to those necessary to give a direction on whether liquidator justified in administering the winding up on basis that company executed guarantee at trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">application granted and directions given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">s 479(3) of the corporations act 2001   contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.27">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">whether executed personally or in capacity as trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.28">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.29">citing from="[2009] VSC 343">admissibility of extrinsic evidence to establish capacity</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] WASC 122" id="cs0">13 The liquidator submitted that:

(a) The conduct of the parties and the reasons for the discontinuance of an action bear heavily on the exercise of the court's discretion to award costs; see O'Neill v Mann [2000] FCA 1680 and McClure v Mayor and Councillors of the City of Stirling (No 3) [2009] WASC 247. (b) There was authority for the proposition that s 511 of the Act could be used to determine the substantive rights of a purported secured creditor provided that the creditor was joined as a defendant to the application. Consequently, the liquidator had acted reasonably in commencing the proceedings: see Re Evers Motor Company Ltd (1962) QWN 6 ; Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Pty Ltd (in liq) v Balanced Securities Ltd [2007] FCA 1443 ; 25 ACLC 1433. (c) Trifield had refused to concede that there was any uncertainty about the effect of the Deed of Rectification and had adopted an approach that was not consistent with the issues raised by the liquidator being resolved in a cost effective and efficient manner. (d) The liquidator was 'given cause to re-evaluate the benefit of the proceedings to the creditors of Citystyle' given Trifield's position regarding the s 511 procedure, the costs involved in resolving a dispute regarding the court's jurisdiction and the likely ongoing disputes over the originating process adopted by the liquidator and the relative expense and complexity of the liquidator commencing proceedings by way of a writ of summons seeking declarations. (e) The liquidator did not unreasonably delay in deciding to discontinue his application. (f) The proceedings were commenced for the benefit of the creditors of Citystyle and were only discontinued because of the uncertainty over the court's jurisdiction to effectively determine the questions raised by the liquidator.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1323" id="cs1">The receivers objected to the mandate issue being determined on an interlocutory basis. As a result, on 31 August 2009, the receivers made application to the Supreme Court of Western Australia (COR 173 of 2009) (the WA Directions Proceedings ) for, inter alia, directions as to whether they should retire or whether they are entitled to remain as receivers. As the plaintiffs in these proceedings submitted, in the WA Directions Proceedings the receivers seek directions. As a result, those proceedings raise questions about the power of the Court to make orders binding upon, or affecting the rights of, third parties: see Editions Tom Thompson Pty Limited v Pilley (1997) 77 FCR 141 at 147 and 150 per Lindgren J ( Editions Tom ); Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Best  Less (Wollongong) Pty Ltd (Rec and Mgr Apptd) [1992] FCA 140 ; (1992) 7 ACSR 245 at 246; Re BG Nathan  Co Pty Limited (In Liquidation) (1991) 24 NSWLR 674 ; Re Media World Communications Ltd (Admin Apptd) v Naidoo [2005] FCA 51 ; (2005) 216 ALR 105 at [5] ; Re Lofthouse, in the matter of Riverside Nursing Care Pty Ltd (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2004] FCA 93 at [2] ; cf (in relation to ss 479(2) and 511 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Corporations Act )) Australian Securities Commission v Melbourne Asset Management Nominees Pty Ltd (Receiver and Manager Appointed) [1994] FCA 1031 ; (1994) 49 FCR 334 ; Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd (In Liq) (ACN 084 358 592) v Balanced Securities Ltd (ACN 083 514 685) [2007] FCA 1443. Each plaintiff in these proceedings is now joined as a defendant in the WA Directions Proceedings. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 343" id="cs2">31 At the hearing, Wixart appeared and made its attitude known. Nevertheless, the liquidator maintained it was appropriate to give the directions sought, although the liquidator also repeated his submission that there is flexibility to convert the proceedings for directions into adversarial proceedings, relying on the observations of French J in Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd. [26] Although invited to do so by counsel for Wixart, the liquidator requests that the application for directions be heard without amendment.  30 The liquidator submits that in any event, there is sufficient flexibility in the procedures of the Court to convert an application for directions into proceedings for the determination of substantive rights: Meadow Springs Fairway Resort Ltd (in liquidation) v Balanced Securities Ltd. [25] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1836" id="cs3">14 In a number of decisions, courts have recognised that one purpose of invoking the procedure under s 479(3) and its analogues is to give the liquidator guidance on matters of law or principle and to protect him or her against accusations of acting unreasonably or improperly: cf: Sanderson v Classic Car Insurances Pty Ltd (1985) 10 ACLR 115 at 117; Onefone Australia Pty Ltd v One.Tel Ltd [2007] NSWSC 112 at [12] ; Meadow Springs Fairways Resort Ltd (In Liq) v Balanced Securities Ltd [2007] FCA 1443 at [45] - [49] per French J.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 471B Stay of proceedings and suspension of enforcement process</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 479 Exercise and control of liquidator's powers</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 511 Application to Court to have questions determined or powers exercised</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 563B Interest on debts and claims from relevant date to date of payment</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601FC Duties of responsible entity</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1337B Jurisdiction of Federal Court and State and Territory Supreme Courts</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l10">STAMP ACT 1921 </title>
<title id="l11">STAMP ACT 1921 - SECT 26 </title>
<title id="l12">TRANSFER OF LAND ACT 1893 </title>
<title id="l13">TRANSFER OF LAND ACT 1893 - SECT 110 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal upholding decision to impose newstart participation failures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether evidence of valid delegation of powers from the secretary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">no evidence of delegation before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">tribunal erred in finding a valid delegation was in place   social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">applicant failed to enter into newstart activity agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether newstart activity agreements unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether applicant required to sign newstart activity agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether reasonable excuse for purposes of s 624 of the social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 1115">no reasonable excuse for failing to enter into newstart activity agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">applicant challenges validity of newstart activity agreements under the social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">agreements required by the act to be "between the person and the secretary"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">agreements signed by employees of workdirections australia pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">delegations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">agreements between the applicant and the secretary for the purposes of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">agreements valid even though employees of workdirections australia did not identify source of power to enter agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">agreements valid despite change of government since agreements entered into</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">agreements valid despite mistake in agreements as to the name of the employment services provider</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1752">agreements in a form approved by the secretary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">social services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">unemployment benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">newstart activity agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">failure to comply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">penalty reduction of newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">application to administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">appeal from aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">refusal by aat to receive character evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">character not in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">whether newstart activity agreement included schedule of agreed activities negotiated separately and not physically attached</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 140">non-negotiation of schedule of agreed activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">newstart activity agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">refusal to sign negotiated agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">whether refusal to sign constitutes an "unreasonable delay" from "entering into an agreement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">no express legislative requirement to sign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">decision set aside.  financial sector (shareholding) act 1998 (cth) schedule 1, clause 3(1) and (2) social security act 1991 (cth) sections 593(1) , 604, 604(1c), 605 , 607 (1)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">(d), 625, 625(1a) and 644aare secretary, department of social security and chadwick (1996) 44 ald 479 re strider v department of employment education training  youth affairs (unreported decision of the tribunal dated 21 november 1997</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2002] AATA 1178">decision no. 12410)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal upholding decision to impose newstart participation failures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether evidence of valid delegation of powers from the secretary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">no evidence of delegation before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">tribunal erred in finding a valid delegation was in place   social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">applicant failed to enter into newstart activity agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether newstart activity agreements unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether applicant required to sign newstart activity agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">whether reasonable excuse for purposes of s 624 of the social security act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1115">no reasonable excuse for failing to enter into newstart activity agreements</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1115" id="cs0">The proceeding was heard concurrently with another proceeding, VID 349 of 2009 which also concerned an appeal by Mr Piotto from a decision of the Tribunal to affirm a participation failure imposed by Centrelink in 2008; see Piotto v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCA 1116. These reasons should be read in conjunction with the reasons for judgment in that proceeding, particularly in respect of the relevant legislative background. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l3">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 593 Qualification for newstart allowance</title>
<title id="l4">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 605 Newstart Employment Pathway Plans--requirement</title>
<title id="l5">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 606 Newstart Employment Pathway Plans--terms</title>
<title id="l6">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 432">adequacy of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 432">obligation of trial judge to give adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 432">content of obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 432">credibility of witnesses involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 432">retrial.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">error of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">failure to address all the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">circular and inconsistent reasoning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">duty to give reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">purposes underlying the duty to give reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">inadequate and unsatisfactory reasons givenappeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">powers and functions of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">obligation to give the decision that ought to have been given at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">duty to observe limitations imposed on appellate court proceeding substantially on the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">whether decision "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to compelling references"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2004] WASCA 141">no basis for substituting decision at first instance for appellate decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">fox v percy  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">review of findings of fact based on trial judge's assessment of credibility of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">whether findings inconsistent with incontrovertibly established facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">power of appellate court to set aside findings.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">issue not raised at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">where argued that expert report based on matters not proved or supported by the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">whether re-examination of facts by appellate court appropriate.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">substitution of judgment of appellate court for that of trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">whether re-trial an appropriate remedy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">lease of shopping centre premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">representations as to number of persons entering centre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">whether any reliance on representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">credibility and reliability of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">ss 52, 82 trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">whether mere possibility that misrepresentation might have induced a course of action may be sufficient to attract liability under s 82.  gould v. vaggelas [1985] hca 85 ; (1985) 157 clr 215  national australia bank limited v. cunningham (1990) atpr 41-047 discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 9">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 9">findings of fact by judge sitting without jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 9">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 9">inferences of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 9">finding on issue of negligence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</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">PARTNERSHIP ACT 1895 PARTNERSHIP ACT 1895 </title>
<title id="l3">PARTNERSHIP ACT 1895 - SECT 7 </title>
<title id="l4">PARTNERSHIP ACT 1895 - SECT 23 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 82">courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 82">federal court</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 1393">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 1393">construction of patent for simulating flames with common application in domestic room heaters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 1393">whether the respondents' domestic room heaters infringed some of the claims in the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 1393">whether the patent is invalid and should be revoked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 52">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 52">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 52">patent infringement proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 52">respondents resisting allegation of infringement and cross-claiming for revocation on ground of invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 52">respondents successful on infringement point but unsuccessful on validity point</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 52">how costs should be apportioned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 52">whether respondents entitled to costs generally or only on issues upon which they succeeded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1056">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1056">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1056">calderbank letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1056">refusal of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1056">whether refusal unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1056">variety of factors relevant to assessment of unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1056">indemnity costs refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] VSC 424">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] VSC 424">offer of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] VSC 424">whether wholly successful defendant entitled to costs on indemnity basis.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1212">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1212">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1212">whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity or solicitor/client basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1212">where a calderbank offer allegedly made by respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1212">applicant's failure to accept the offer not unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1212">whether a 'compromise' in the relevant sense where the offer is for application to be withdrawn and each party to bear its own costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 526">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 526">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 526">whether leave to amend its statement of claim should be granted to a patentee to raise new types of infringement of its patent after a separate trial on liability but before the damages trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 526">whether consequential orders for further discovery should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 357">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 357">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 357">whether in a patent infringement case, in circumstances where the trial of all questions of liability (including the determination of claims for injunctive relief) were heard and determined before all claims for pecuniary relief, the patentee is entitled without more to seek to recover damages in respect of the importation, sale and/or distribution of additional devices which are alleged to infringe the patent even though those devices were not considered by the court at the liability stage and were not the subject of any findings of infringement at that stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 357">in the present case, the patentee had specifically identified the articles which allegedly infringed the patent and conducted the trial and subsequent appeal upon the basis that these were the only articles said to have infringed the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 357">the patentee did not reserve the right to enlarge the type of its infringing articles at the damages stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 357">in the events which have happened and in light of the form of the patentee's statements of claim, additional infringements not permitted to be litigated at the damages stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 93">category: no</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 526" id="cs0">Subsequently, disputes arose between the applicant, on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, as to the extent to which the respondents were obliged to provide discovery. It became apparent that, at the heart of the parties' disagreement about discovery was a difference of opinion as to whether, in addition to the specific models of heaters which were found by the Full Court to have infringed the Patent, the applicant was entitled to pursue the respondents in respect of other models of heaters which had not to date been considered either by me at trial or by the Full Court on appeal. I considered that there was a question of principle which underlay the parties' dispute concerning discovery. I took the view that the best way of resolving that question of principle was to order in each of the extant proceedings that a separate question be heard separately from and before any further trial of any of those proceedings. Accordingly, on 17 March 2011, I made an order in the following terms in each of proceedings NSD 1681 of 2006, NSD 43 of 2007 and NSD 2056 of 2007: Pursuant to O 29 r 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules , the following question be heard separately from and before any further trial in the proceedings, namely:

 Whether, upon the basis of the pleadings as they currently stand and in light of the judgments of this Court in Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1393 , Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1460 , Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 75 and Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 93 , it is open to the applicant to claim damages for infringement of its patent being Australian Patent No 621713 in respect of the importation, distribution or sale of electric flame heaters bearing model numbers [there was here inserted the relevant model numbers].

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 357" id="cs1">Subsequently, disputes arose between the applicant, on the one hand, and the respondents, on the other hand, as to the extent to which the respondents were obliged to provide discovery. It became apparent that, at the heart of the parties' disagreement about discovery was a difference of opinion as to whether, in addition to the specific models of heaters which were found by the Full Court to have infringed the Patent, the applicant was entitled to pursue the respondents in respect of other models of heaters which had not to date been considered either by me at trial or by the Full Court on appeal. I considered that there was a question of principle which underlay the parties' dispute concerning discovery. I took the view that the best way of resolving that question of principle was to order in each of the extant proceedings that a separate question be heard separately from and before any further trial of any of those proceedings. Accordingly, on 17 March 2011, I made an order in the following terms in each of proceedings NSD 1681 of 2006, NSD 43 of 2007 and NSD 2056 of 2007: Pursuant to O 29 r 2(a) of the Federal Court Rules , the following question be heard separately from and before any further trial in the proceedings, namely:

 Whether, upon the basis of the pleadings as they currently stand and in light of the judgments of this Court in Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1393 , Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1460 , Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 75 and Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCAFC 93 , it is open to the applicant to claim damages for infringement of its patent being Australian Patent No 621713 in respect of the importation, distribution or sale of electric flame heaters bearing model numbers [there was here inserted the relevant model numbers].

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 93" id="cs2">3 The four proceedings were heard together as, although the parties in each proceeding were different, the issues were broadly the same: Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1393 at [2] . The primary Judge found that the respondents' heaters did not infringe the patent, and made orders dismissing each application. His Honour also determined that the patent was not invalid, and dismissed the cross-claims. In substance, his Honour ordered Bitech to pay the respondents' costs in relation to infringement. His Honour reserved the question of costs in the proceeding against Flameglow pending the determination of an appeal, as Flameglow had been placed in liquidation, and its cross-claim based on unjustifiable threats remained unresolved: see Bitech Engineering v Garth Living Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 1460 at [34] - [62] and the orders made by the primary Judge in NSD 105 of 2007 on 3 February 2010. His Honour also granted leave to Bitech to prosecute an appeal against Flameglow while the company was in liquidation. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 19 Businesses of a particular kind</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 500 Execution and civil proceedings</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l4">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 19 Certificate of validity</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>