Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">citizenship and migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">review of decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">conduct of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">hearsay evidence where maker of original statement unavailable citizenship and migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">review of decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">grounds of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">apprehended bias  held: rejection of witness' hearsay evidence merely on the basis that tribunal had no opportunity to test the evidence of the maker of the original statement is a jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 522">may also be seen as apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 188">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 188">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 188">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 188">tribunal made adverse findings on appellant's credibility based on demeanour and discounted corroborative documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 188">tribunal failed to give appellant opportunity to respond to adverse country information on which it intended to rely</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 188">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s20/2002  appellant s106/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">temporary protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">where refugee review tribunal found that applicant was an unreliable witness and discounted evidence said to be corroborative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was affected by actual bias or by a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">distinction between discretionary decisions and decisions involving the finding of facts essential to the exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision evidenced an erroneous approach to the finding of jurisdictional facts.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">section 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">extent to which the content of the constitutional writs is affected by common law developments in administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">availability of constitutional writs in proceedings that include an appeal concerning related issues.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">unavailability of review of factual or evidentiary merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether relief available under migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ") or under the constitution , s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was not authorised by the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was marred by error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal would have made it.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 20 Reasonable compensation</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 420 Refugee Review Tribunal's way of operating</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 117">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 117">agreement in 1992 for production of industrial cookers between respondent inventor and appellant manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 117">dispute as to intellectual property rights in drawings subsequently prepared by appellant in connection with manufacture of 26 cookers over ten years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 117">alleged misrepresentation by appellant as to ownership of respondent's business</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">application by plaintiff for security for costs of defendant's cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">standing of plaintiff to claim security under (cth) corporations act 2001 , s 1335 and/or (nsw) uniform civil procedure rules, r 42.41</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">whether cross-claimant is in substance a plaintiff in the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">whether corporate impecuniosity established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 1399">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1335 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 56 Security</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 42 Reference of certain questions to Products Safety Committee</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 847">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 847">professional indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 847">relief by way of joinder of additional parties consequential to earlier reasons and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">lender advanced moneys secured by mortgage of realty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">lender asserted reliance in so doing on valuation of real estate valuer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">borrower defaulted under mortgage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">likely shortfall in loan moneys outstanding inclusive of interest after exercise of power of sale by lender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">lender sought recovery of shortfall from valuer on basis of misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">valuer held professional indemnity insurance from australian underwriting agent for unnamed non-resident representative or nominee for individual unnamed underwriters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">lender sought leave to add australian underwriting agent and non-resident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">liability to indemnity rejected upon the basis of controversial interpretation and operation of policies of indemnity in favour of valuer in relation to each of two successive years of cover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">issue as to applicable annual insurance cover for two successive years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">difference in wording of cover for each year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">whether notice to litigate applicable to one year of indemnity or the next following year of indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">issues arising as to construction of successive yearly policies reasonably arguable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 640">leave granted to lender to join in proceedings as respondents additional to valuer the australian insurance agent and the overseas representative for the unidentified underwriters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">application for leave to appeal to full court from judgment of a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">opposition proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">where single judge ordered applications proceed to registration and marks subsequently registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">where no application for stay of single judge's orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">whether obligation to register marks after judgment on appeal from registrar's decision under s 68(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">whether full court has power to rectify register through cancellation or removal of marks pursuant to trade marks act , federal court of australia act or to preserve subject matter of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">exercise of discretion trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">colour mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">test under s 41(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">whether determine full scope of mark when applying s 41(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">test for leave to appeal in an opposition to registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">failure to consider matters raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 52">leave to appeal granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 193">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 193">claims made and notified policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 193">failure to disclose "circumstances which may give rise to a claim"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 193">scope of s6(4) of law reform (miscellaneous provisions) act 1946 (nd)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">criminal law and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">murder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">subpoena seeking material as to police surveillance methodology</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">public interest immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">proper test therefor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">test of reasonable possibility that the information sought would materially assist the defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">"on the cards" test inappropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">lawful listening device pursuant to s.4a listening devices act 1969 (victoria)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">question of application of s.7 telecommunications (interception) act 1979 (commonwealth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2007] VSC 244">whether interception of communication passing over a telecommunications system.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 60">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 60">exercise of discretion in joinder of insurer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 60">whether arguable insured had a claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 60">necessary to have arguable case of liability and arguable case of indemnity. agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 60">whether party is insurer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 60">whether proper to be added as insurers.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] VSC 244" id="cs0">9 The meaning of the expression "on the cards" has been considered in Australia. In the insurance context, Lindgren J in FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v McSweeney [15] stated that circumstances "may give rise to a claim where the bringing of the claim against the insured in respect of them was a 'definite risk' or a 'real possibility' or 'on the cards'. " In the medical context in a murder appeal, in Erich v R [16] , concerning the meaning of the word "probable" used in cross-examination of a pathologist, the Court referred to passages in Koufos above cited and then expressed the compendium "something which is a serious or distinct possibility or which is 'on the cards'". </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 60" id="cs1">2 Their appeal seeks to overturn the exercise of a discretion by a Judge of this Court who granted leave to join them as additional respondents to proceedings commenced against a valuation company and one of its valuers (who are the second and third respondents to this appeal). The orders and judgment under appeal were made and was delivered on 4 July 2006 ( Permanent Custodians Limited v ARMA Pty Limited (No 2) [2006] FCA 847). The judgment of 4 July 2006, in large part, reflected reasons in an earlier judgment of 29 May 2006 ( Permanent Custodians Limited v ARMA Pty Limited [2006] FCA 640). Both judgments, read together, provide the reasons for the orders for joinder, made on 4 July 2006. Leave to appeal was given by a Judge exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Court on 28 September 2006 ( Macquarie Underwriting Pty Ltd v Permanent Custodians Limited [2006] FCA 1291). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l1">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l2">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 33 No other remedies</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l4">LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1946 </title>
<title id="l5">LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1946 - SECT 6 Amount of liability to be charge on insurance moneys payable against that liability</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">obligation to produce discovered documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">power of court to order production of documents discovered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">criterion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">"necessary"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">whether inspection necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">duty in provision of discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">certificate of availability for inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">duty of solicitor in so certifying</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 89">discovery of single item comprising voluminous unsorted records including irrelevant material</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 89" id="cs0">6 The decision refusing the University's application was given on 1 December 2006: The University of Western Australia v Gray (No 6) [2006] FCA 1656. I noted in the reasons that Dr Gray did not contend that the material sought was irrelevant. He argued rather that it was of "tangential" relevance.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 454">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 454">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 454">spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 454">whether the tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 454">whether the tribunal took into account irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 454">whether the tribunal had a duty to enquire in the circumstances of this case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 454">whether reg.1.15a(1a)(b) is invalid.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">application for permanent residence in australia by spouse of person having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">validity of decision to refuse application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">failure of minister to take into account relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">unreasonableness of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">ambit of material relevant for consideration in determining reasonableness.  migration act 1958 ss. 6 , 6a  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 s.5  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">review of minister's decision refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to australia, spouse having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether minister had failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether exercise of power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">taking of further evidence to adduce facts not before the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss 5(1)(e) , 5 (2), 5 (2)(a), 5 (2)(b), 5 (2)(f), 5 (2)(g), 6 (2), 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 6 , 6a. in an application for review of a decision of the minister for immigration and ethnic affairs made in 1984 refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to an applicant who was the spouse of a permanent resident on the basis that the applicant's marriage had been assessed as being one where the parties did not genuinely intend to continue living as a married couple in australia, it being the minister's policy to refuse permanent entry permits in such cases.  held: (1) that relevant considerations which should have been taken into account were not, thus making the minister's decision invalid pursuant to s 5(2)(b) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (the act), such considerations being:  (i) a report made in 1981 by an interviewing officer in suva expressing an opinion that the marriage relationship was genuine, such report being part of the history of the relationship, all of which was relevant in determining the quality of the marriage as at the date of the minister deciding the application. although the report was not presented to the minister, it was on the departmental file and was accordingly to be regarded as being constructively before him.  peko-wallsend ltd v. minister for aboriginal affairs (1985) 59 alr 51 , referred to.  (ii) statutory declarations of neighbours and acquaintances as to the applicant leading a normal married life and a letter of a social worker as to the applicant's wife living at home with the applicant, such documents being available to the minister, but there being nothing to indicate that he had taken any account of them.  (2) that in determining whether an administrative decision made under statutory authority falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">(a) the court should construe that paragraph in the light of the common law principle of which that paragraph is a legislative enactment, that principle being stated by lord diplock in bromley london borough city council v. greater london council (1983) 1 ac 768 to be the invalidation of administrative decisions "that looked at objectively are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached them" and by menzies j in parramatta city council v. pestell [1972] hca 59 ; (1972) 128 clr 305 to be the invalidation of an administrative decision "based on an opinion which could not be justified on any reasonable grounds".  perkins v. cuthill [1981] fca 44 ; (1981) 34 alr 669 ; plegas v. mccabe (unreported, federal court of australia, lockhart j, 3 august 1984; willara pty ltd v. mcveigh (1984) 54 alr 65 ; re w (an infant) (1971) ac 682 ; associated provincial picture houses v. wednesbury corporation [1947] ewca civ 1 ; (1948) 1 kb 223 ; secretary of state for education and science v. tameside metropolitan borough council [1976] ukhl 6 ; (1977) ac 1014 ; borkovic v. minister for immigration and ethnic affairs (1981) 39 alr 186 ; hamblin v. duffy [1981] fca 38 ; (1981) 50 flr 308 ; mixnam's properties ltd v. chertsey urban district council (1964) 1 qb 214 , referred to.  (b) the court is entitled to consider those facts which were known to the decision-maker actually or constructively together only with such additional facts as the decision-maker would have learned but for any unreasonable conduct by him where such facts are obtainable from material that is readily available.  (3) that, having taken further evidence relating to the matters arising out of the interviews by the departmental officer, and having reviewed and analysed the evidence and the manner in which the decision was reached by the minister, and bearing in mind the strength of the case required before it may be said that a decision falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act, the minister's decision was "devoid of any plausible justification" and that it accordingly be set aside pursuant to that paragraph of the act and the matter remitted to the minister for further consideration. in reaching this decision the court took into account, inter alia, the following matters:  (i) the existence of the statutory declarations and the social worker's letter asserting that there was a normal marriage relationship, the declarants and writer thereof being apparently credible and independent and such documents asserting a conclusion contrary to that formed by the minister and the fact that the minister had not further investigated the statements contained in those documents as he ought to have done.  (ii) that the only matters tending to show lack of intention to live together were the circumstances of the marriage four years earlier and more importantly, interviews by a departmental officer of the applicant and his wife, such interviews containing inconsistencies in their recollection of details in their daily lives, the minister believing that such inconsistencies indicated that the wife did not live with her husband. the interviewing officer should have given the applicant an opportunity to deal with those matters which excited an adverse reaction in the officer before permitting those matters to be used in a manner adverse to the applicant in the decision-making process.  (iii) the interviews which were relied upon by the minister as the primary method of determining the genuineness of the relationship were rushed and short and in any case, neither a verbatim record nor at least contemporaneous notes of the interviews were made and kept, as ought to have been done.  hearing  sydney, 1985, february 5-6, 26.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 902">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 902">partner visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 902">whether tribunal can accept / reject evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 902">weight is question for tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 902">whether tribunal required to mention all issues.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1367">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1367">categories of visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1367">family migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1367">spouses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1367">aged dependant relative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1367">whether de facto relationships included in definition of 'married' for reg 1.03.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">application to raise ground of appeal abandoned below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">jurisdiction or discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">role of appellate court to correct error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">need for timely decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">certificates filed by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">inquiry initiated by tribunal unearthed opposing evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">certificates said to be " fake  forged "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">further inquiry required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1372">appeal allowed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 902" id="cs0">The Minister referred to the judgement of in Li v Minster for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1098 ; 96 ALD 361 where Justice Kenny decided at [19]: "Further, I accept that, as the first respondent submitted, the absence of specific reference to persistence in the Tribunal's reasons does not demonstrate a failure to take into account "all the circumstances of the relationship" for the purposes of reg 1.15A(3). " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1367" id="cs1">It appears to me that the term 'married' has a specific legal meaning, clearly defined in Australia by the Marriage Act . The meaning of married is a well defined legal term that has great importance in Constitutional issues when the Commonwealth exercises power with respect to matrimonial causes. Of course, the power to make regulations under the Migration Act does not depend in any way upon the matrimonial causes power, and it is open to the government to define the term 'married' to have a broader definition for the purposes of the Migration Act than it would have for constitutional law or in legislation relying on the matrimonial causes power. It is open to the legislature to define 'marriage' as it sees fit for the purpose of the Migration Act : Li v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1098 , (2007) 96 ALD 361 [2007] ALMD 7080 at [12] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1372" id="cs2">18 There was, however, no opposition to advancing the submission as to a failure to make inquiries in terms of the decision being unreasonable. So structured, the dispute centred upon whether or not it was unreasonable not to have made further inquiries. No submission was advanced on behalf of the Appellant, nor could it have been advanced, that the power of the Tribunal to make further inquiries imposed upon it " any duty or obligation to do so ": Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SGLB [2004] HCA 32 at [43] , 207 ALR 12 at 21---2 per Gummow and Hayne JJ. See also: SZJBA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1592 at [46] , [2007] FCA 1592 ; 164 FCR 14 at 25 per Allsop J; WAGJ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 277 at [24] . Nor was any submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent Minister that there was not a line of inquiry which was readily available to the Tribunal and centrally relevant to the task being undertaken: eg, Li v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1098 at [28] , [2007] FCA 1098 ; 96 ALD 361 at 367 per Kenny J. The simple submission advanced on behalf of the Respondent Minister was that there was material upon which the Tribunal could justifiably have based its decision and there was, in those circumstances, no duty to inquire further. The response of the Association was disclosed to the now Appellant and he provided his response.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MARRIAGE ACT 1961 </title>
<title id="l1">MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">MARRIAGE ACT 1961 - SECT 88E Validity of certain marriages not affected by this Part</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 4 Object of Act</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 12 Application of Part VA of the Marriage Act</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 31 Classes of visas</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359B Requirements for written invitation etc.</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 363 Powers of the Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">public access to documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic courtroom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic media court book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">federal court rules , o 46 r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement claimed to contravene the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused.  pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">amendment of statement of claim.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appeal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion under s.50 considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order made prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon appropriate undertakings being given.  trade practices act 1974 , ss 45 and 45a;  federal court of australia act 1976 , ss.17 and 50 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement alleged to contravene s. 45</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45a.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon undertakings given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 17 , 50 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">application to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">leave to amend refused by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments added substance. the australian broadcasting commission ("the a.b.c.") instituted proceedings in the federal court of australia against the members for the time being of the australian cricket board ("the board") and three corporations ("the corporations"). in the proceedings the a.b.c. sought certain relief for alleged breaches of the provisions of the trade practices act 1974 ("the act ") in relation to a written agreement between the board and the corporations dated 30th may, 1979. in the course of the proceedings the court refused to allow the a.b.c. to amend the already amended statement of claim in two separate respects. the a.b.c. appealed to the full court of the federal court of australia against this decision (appeal no. g13 of 1980). on the 18th february, 1980, the primary court decided further that the a.b.c. should be granted unrestricted access to certain parts of the agreement which were claimed to be confidential and that, upon the agreement being tendered and received in evidence, no order restricting publication of those parts of the agreement should be made pursuant to s. 50 of the federal court of australia act 1976 . appeals were lodged against the two last-mentioned decisions by the board and the three corporations (appeals nos. g14 and g15 of 1980). the three appeals were heard together and disposed of in a single judgment.  held: per curiam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">the appeal in matter g13 should be dismissed with costs because: (1) the proposed amendment to par. 5 of the amended statement of claim was ambiguous and added nothing of substance.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">conspiracy to effect a purpose that is unlawful under a law of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">proposed borrowing in contravention of financial agreement 1927</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 57 , 61 , 105a , 128</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">constitution alteration (state debts) 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement 1927, cll. 3, 4, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1928 (cth), s. 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement validation act 1929 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1944 (cth), s. 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">crimes act 1914 (cth), s. 86.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">subpoena duces tecum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim of privilege by crown and individual litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">scope of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">cabinet documents and similar papers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">prior publication by tabling in parliament and otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">disclosure of proceedings of parliament without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">private prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">difficulty of proving charges without production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">form of affidavits claiming privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">balance of competing interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">justices act, 1902 (n.s.w.), s. 26.  declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">jurisdiction in relation to criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">commital proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim for declaration by informant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">supreme court act, 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 75</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.26">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">high court rules, o. 26, r. 19.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 50 Prohibition of publication of evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">proceeding one of nine brought by individuals against credit reporting agency alleging it had provided incorrect information concerning their creditworthiness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">causes of action in defamation and negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">respondent served affidavit pursuant to usual direction of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">respondent did not serve certain exhibits to the affidavit claiming that they were commercially confidential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">respondent moved for orders that access to those exhibits be limited to legal representatives of the respective applicants and that they be required to give written undertakings to court to use the copy exhibits and information in them only for purposes of the proceeding, and to destroy the copies at conclusion of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">exhibits in question were business records showing internal procedures followed by respondent directed to ensuring that privacy act 1988 (cth) and credit reporting code of conduct complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1603">applicants assisted by a company whose role not clear on the evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">discovery of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">implied undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">proposed release of discovered documents by applicant to litigation funder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">litigation funder not empowered to control or direct proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">contractual entitlement in relation to settlement of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">insufficient specificity of purpose or range of documents to be disclosed to litigation funder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">application refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">insufficiency of particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 244">parts of pleading struck out as embarrassing</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1603" id="cs0">42 Seventh, in Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd v Concept Sports Limited [2006] FCA 711 , which concerned discovered documents, Finkelstein J held that disclosure to a litigation funder was not caught by the implied undertaking. His Honour's reason was that a litigation funder, although not a party, was not a stranger to the proceeding and had a sufficient interest to be provided with the documents, or at least to those documents it needed in order to assess the merits of the action.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 244" id="cs1">19 In Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd v Concept Store Ltd [2006] FCA 711 , Finkelstein J, faced with a similar application in relation to the same litigation funder said (at [6] and [7]):

 [6] The view that I take is that the implied undertaking does not prevent absolutely a party giving discovered documents to a non-party. There are circumstances in which a party has a legitimate interest in disclosing discovered documents to a non-party. Obvious examples include showing a discovered document to an actual or prospective witness or to an expert non-witness.

24 In a letter dated 10 November 2006 Mr Rollnik wrote to the solicitors for the Ericsson parties stating that they were instructed that IMF had a funding agreement with the applicants and "a recognised interest in this dispute". He referred to Cadence Asset Management Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 711. In a further letter dated 29 November 2006 he described IMF's purpose in accessing the discovery as being "to look after its interest in the litigation as set out in the Funding Agreement".</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 204">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 204">penalty tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 204">s 224 and s 226l of income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 204">whether "purpose" for which a scheme is entered into or carried out is to be assessed by reference to the subjective purpose of the parties to the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">tax shortfall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">derived from treating income tax law as applying in relation to a tax avoidance scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">tax avoidance scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">whether entered into or carried out for the sole or dominant purpose of enabling a person to pay no or less tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">subjective or objective determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">subjective inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 23">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">customs tariff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">classification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">prepared or preserved fish</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">tuna</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">consideration of whether in pieces or minced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">no failure to consider evidence of trade meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">no wrong conclusion in relation to meaning and application of 'minced'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 4">no error in consideration of classification of product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">roncevich v repatriation commission  repatriation pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether injury arose out of or was attributable to defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether attendance at mess function compulsory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether attendance at mess function constituted defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">applicant injured as a result of falling from window due to intoxication.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">tribunal of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether administrative appeals tribunal gave reasons which conformed to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">sufficiency of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether perverse findings of fact constitute an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">jurisdiction of federal court to disturb perverse findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether returning matter to the administrative appeals tribunal would be futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether high court should substitute a finding on the facts.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">interpretation of beneficial provisions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">deductions for losses incurred in prior taxation years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">continuity of business test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">change in beneficial ownership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">whether change occurred before or after takeover of new business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">same business test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">involvement in same industry not sufficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) s 80e(1) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">duty on administrative appeals tribunal to state its findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">whether duty complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">consequences of non-compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 158">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) s 43(2b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">commissioner of taxation v hart  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">avoidance of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">tax benefit under income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">whether scheme entered into for the dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">meaning of "scheme"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">split loan facility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">where money borrowed in part to purchase a principal place of residence and in part to refinance investment property used to produce assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">where expenditure in relation to producing assessable income deductible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">where repayments on loan applied solely in satisfaction of that part of the loan not used to produce assessable income.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">tax avoidance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether scheme to which part iva of income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) ("the act ") applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">investment in tea tree project</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether it would be concluded that taxpayer and his wife entered into scheme with dominant purpose of obtaining tax benefits. income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">prepaid management fees and prepaid interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether involved in carrying on a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether outgoings of capital nature. income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">determination made under s 177f of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether person making the determination was properly authorised to do so as delegate of the commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 94">whether discretion to make determination miscarried because the person who made the determination failed to take into account the personal circumstances of the taxpayer.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">prospectus issued by promoters of flower growing and export scheme of fifteen years duration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">estimated annual financial returns for first 5 years of scheme projected in prospectus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">prospectus provided that proceeds of subscriptions to scheme be applied partly in payment for so-called 'growth bags' or plantations partly in payment of license fees in respect of plantation sites and predominantly in payment of management fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">scheme plantation manager corporately related to scheme marketing manager</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">option to subscribers to obtain guaranteed return of $10,000 per plantation in relation to fifth financial year of scheme operations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">option for guaranteed return exercisable at time of subscription for units</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">promoters procured irrevocable letter of credit from banking corporation to secure guaranteed returns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">no reference to means or source of securing guaranteed returns to subscribers made in prospectus nor to that cost</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">security for guaranteed returns comprised prospectus subscriptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">expert evidence adduced as to horticultural viability of scheme accepted by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">respondents professional persons not previously engaged in horticulture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">respondents subscribed for units close to culmination of fiscal year of promotion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">further subscription made by one taxpayer midway in following fiscal year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">disallowance by commissioner of entirety of deductions for license fees and management fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">proceedings at first instance contested by commissioner upon basis as to unavailability of deductibility of entire license and management fees without apportionment in relation to cost of provision of guaranteed returns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">claims at first instance contested by commissioner on 'all nor nothing' basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">acceptance by primary judge of credibility of dominant purposes of taxpayers in entering into scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">finding by primary judge that financial failure of scheme unrelated to prospective viability of scheme as at time of subscriptions of taxpayers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">credibility and tax avoidance issues resolved at first instance wholly in favour of taxpayers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">tax deductibility wholly allowed at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 75">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">news limited v south sydney district rugby league football club limited  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">exclusionary provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">merger of competing sporting competitions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">provision that no more than a certain number of teams participate in new competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">whether provision included for purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting supply of goods or services to, or acquisition of goods or services from, particular persons or classes of persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">test for determining purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 4d, 45 (2)(a)(i), 45 (2)(b)(i).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">interveners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 45">whether intervener may advance on appeal argument not adopted by parties to appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">re minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs; ex parte applicants s134/2002  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">temporary protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed decision of delegate of the minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs ("the minister") not to grant protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">minister not bound to consider whether to exercise power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">minister decided not to exercise power under s 417 of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ") to substitute for the decision of the tribunal a decision more favourable to the prosecutors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">whether decisions of the tribunal and the minister "privative clause decisions" under s 474 of the act .  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">applications for temporary protection visas by mother and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">first prosecutor's application asserted that she was a person to whom australia had protection obligations under the refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">application not made on basis of membership of a family unit, to one of whom protection obligations were owed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">documents before the tribunal indicated that the first prosecutor's husband held a temporary protection visa and had applied for a permanent protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">first prosecutor did not know of her husband's whereabouts or immigration status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">tribunal did not notice documents or appreciate their significance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">tribunal did not consider whether prosecutors entitled to protection visas on basis of membership of a family unit of which one person was owed protection obligations and had been granted a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">whether constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">whether denial of procedural fairness.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">whether jurisdictional error in decision by minister to refuse to substitute for the decision of the tribunal a decision more favourable to the prosecutors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 1">utility of relief.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">" mr slattery: ... dr brown, i just want to ask you a couple of other questions in relation to your relationship with the itr, as way of background for his honour. the document which is exhibit aa was a document whereby you became a client of the itr. that is correct, is it not?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that's correct, yes.  but you had another relationship with the itr, did you not?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that's correct.  you were an agent of the itr.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that is true.  what did that mean?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that meant that i could refer clients through to the itr to have them represented and be paid a fee, a commission for referring people through.  i think that fee was about 18 per cent, was it, of the net gain to the itr from having that person referred to it?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">yes, it could be around about that or 15 per cent, 18 per cent, something like that.  and i think throughout 1999 you were paid fees, were you not?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that's correct.  do you know how much you were paid?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">not exactly. it would have been probably in the order of about 12,000, something like that.  and that is in respect of people you introduced to the itr?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that's correct.  in that period, you were the person responsible for those clients being introduced to the itr, were you not?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">yes.  in that period as well, you were having contact, as you have said, with mr ian henke, both in relation to your own matters and in relation to the clients that you introduced to the itr?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">not so much in relation to clients that i referred through to the itr. once those clients were, you know, had become clients of itr, one ceased to have any further dealings with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">you know, the itr then would engage in their own sort of relationship with the client.  in the same fashion as happened to arundel?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that's correct.  and you left it to the itr?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that's correct.  both in respect of yourself and in respect of the clients you introduced?</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 26">that's correct."</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">appeal from decision of the administrative appeals tribunal ("aat")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">whether injury the result of "reasonable disciplinary action"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">whether decision not authorised by an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">whether improper exercise of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">whether consideration of irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">whether lack of comment by experts relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">review of decisions by expert panel of the aat considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">whether lack of procedural fairness by aat's failure to raise the importance of the experts failure to comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">there is no obligation on the aat to inform parties of proposed reasoning process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1997] FCA 102">whether failure to take account of relevant considerations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">tax avoidance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">whether it would be concluded that scheme entered into by taxpayer was entered into for the dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">significance of commissioner's delineation of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">whether in the circumstances there was a tax benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">meaning of "reasonable expectation" considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">whether if the scheme as delineated by the commissioner had not been entered into or carried out shares the subject of the scheme would as a factual matter have been purchased in the name of a corporate trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">redeemable preference share financing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 74">income tax assessment act 1936 : s. 26aaa, s. 260 part iva: s. 177a , s. 177c , s. 177d , s. 177f  income tax laws amendment act (no 2) 1981  attorney-general v cockcroft (1986) 64 alr 97 referred to.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">appeal from the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">whether factual inferences may be challenged on ground of unreasonableness  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">superannuation contributions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">s.82aas(2) income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">"eligible person"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">meaning of "reasonable to expect"  administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">s.44  income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1990] FCA 389">s.82aas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 34">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 34">taxpayer recently employed by queensland railways as a casual employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 34">casual employees entitled to certain retirement benefits after long periods of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 34">taxpayer contributing to superannuation scheme not provided by employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 34">taxpayer claimed deduction for contribution to scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 34">whether, during the whole or a part of the year of income circumstances existed by reason of which it was reasonable to expect that superannuation benefits would be provided for the taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 34">discussion of considerations appropriate to be taken into account by commissioner in determining whether deduction allowable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information act 1982 (cth), s.42(1).  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">outgoings incurred by taxpayer in connection with afforestation scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">whether allowable deductions under s.51 income tax assessment act, 1936 ("itaa")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">investment in scheme largely funded by borrowings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">whether outgoings actually "incurred" within meaning of s.51</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">whether outgoings incurred in gaining or producing assessable income or in carrying on a business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">deductibility of prepaid expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">relevance of taxpayer's motives to deductibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">whether outgoings of capital rather than revenue nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">applicability of s.82kl(1) of itaa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">whether value of additional benefit in relation to eligible relevant expenditure and expected tax saving in connection with that eligible relevant expenditure equal to or greater than the amount of the eligible relevant expenditure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">applicability of s.260 so as to deny deductions.  income tax assessment act, 1936 ss.51, 82kh , 82kl , 190, 260  federal commissioner of taxation v. james flood pty. limited [1953] hca 65 ; (1953) 88 c.l.r. 492</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.12">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">con.  ure v. federal commissioner of taxation [1981] fca 9 ; (1981) 34 a.l.r. 237</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.13">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">con.  federal commissioner of taxation v. ilbery [1981] fca 188 ; (1981) 38 a.l.r. 172</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.14">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">con.  clowes v. federal commissioner of taxation [1954] hca 10 ; (1954) 91 c.l.r. 209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.15">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">con.  cecil bros. pty. limited v. federal commissioner of taxation (1964) 111 c.l.r. 430</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.16">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">con.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.17">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.18">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">losses and outgoings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.19">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">"incurred"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.20">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">afforestation scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.21">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">prepayment of management fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.22">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">loan transactions with special features</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.23">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">tax avoidance scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.24">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">"additional benefit" to taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.25">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.26">cited from="[1984] FCA 401">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss 51(1), 82kl (1), 260 . held: (1) that a taxpayer, who entered into a long-term commercial venture involving the growing of pine trees with a view to the future sales of timber therefrom, was entitled to a deduction under s 51(1) for a lump sum "management fee" paid to the managers of the venture in return for recurring services to be rendered in connection with the venture for a period of twenty-one years.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">outgoings incurred in gaining assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">capital or revenue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">acquisition of shares in company holding prospecting rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">price consisting of lump sum and further amounts payable periodically at rate per ton of ore produced if company obtained mining rights and removed ore</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">whether periodic payments capital outgoings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 8">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 51 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">purchases under agreement of beneficial interest in produce of "lots" in pine plantation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">vendor to plant, maintain and harvest timber</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">proportion of proceeds of sale of produce from whole plantation divisible among lot-holders according to respective lot-holdings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">distribution to lot-holder to be in full settlement of claims under agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">sum paid to lot-holder in excess of sum paid by him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">whether difference a "profit arising . . . from the carrying on or carrying out of any profit-making undertaking or scheme" by or on behalf of taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.9">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">necessity for system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.10">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">income tax assessment act 1936-1945 (no. 27 of 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.11">cited from="[1954] HCA 10">no. 4 of 1945), s. 26 (a).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 80" id="cs0">On 14 November 2008 judgment was delivered in relation to these jointly heard applications under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) ( Narbey v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1699 (the primary reasons)). Shortly put, the applications enjoyed only limited success. </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">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l4">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l5">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 6AB Foreign income and foreign tax</title>
<title id="l6">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 8 Commissioner</title>
<title id="l7">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 102AAZD Assessable income of attributable taxpayer to include attributable income of trust estate to which taxpayer has transferred property or services</title>
<title id="l8">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177A Interpretation</title>
<title id="l9">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177C Tax benefits</title>
<title id="l10">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177D Schemes to which Part applies</title>
<title id="l11">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177F Cancellation of tax benefits etc.</title>
<title id="l12">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 330 Tax detriment</title>
<title id="l13">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 456 Assessability in respect of CFC's attributable income</title>
<title id="l14">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 457 Assessability where CFC changes residence from unlisted country to listed country or to Australia</title>
<title id="l15">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 459A Assessability where CFC or CFT has interest in certain attributable taxpayers</title>
<title id="l16">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 84D Proceedings affected by possible defect in authorisation</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190F If the claim cannot be registered--review by Federal Court</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 195 Restrictions on voting--directors of public companies only</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">whether breach of s.424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">psychiatrist's report provided by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">whether 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">use by tribunal to make adverse finding of credit against applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">whether failure to consider persecution of applicant by reason of religion on return to burma</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 375">application allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1139">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1139">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1139">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1139">claim of failure by the tribunal to fully consider persecution of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1139">claim of failure to consider fully what harm encompasses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1139">application allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1139">matter remitted to refugee review tribunal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 375" id="cs0">Accordingly, it was submitted that the reason for the Tribunal's decision in the present case are distinguishable from those which were the subject of a Federal Court decision in MZWEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 442 (MZXWEL) relied upon by the Applicants. Reliance was placed upon the decision of Kenny J in MZWEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 442 where Her Honour said:

 "26 On a fair reading of the RRT's reasons for its decision, the RRT's knowledge that the standard letter contained an assurance of privacy was knowledge that the RRT considered was a part of the reason it affirmed the decision under review.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1139" id="cs1">This caused the Tribunal to err by failing to satisfy the mandatory requirements of s.424A of the Act : SZEEU at [164] per Weinberg J, at [216] --- [217] per Allsop J; MZWEL v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 442 at [24] - [29] per Kenny J).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 66 Notification of decision</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 368 Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 688">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 688">application by respondent debtor to transfer proceedings to the family court and/or extend time for compliance pending appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 688">respondent's intention to oppose creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 688">respondent's application for adjournment of creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 688">all applications dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">leave to appeal from the decision of primary judge's refusal to adjourn bankruptcy petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">appellate court's review of primary judge's discretion refusing adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">general principles of review by appellate courts apply to bankruptcy proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">application of sub-s. 201(1) income tax assessment act 1936 to bankruptcy proceedings.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">judgment obtained by commissioner for tax owing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1987] FCA 312">whether sequestration order should have been made when tax appeals in supreme court against assessments were pending when petition for sequestration heard.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 113">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1066">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1066">application to annul</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1066">order that " ought not to have been made "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1066">a " heavy burden "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1066">previous applications refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1066">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1066">previous proceedings in other courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1100">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1100">annulment of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1100">whether sequestration order ought not have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1100">no fresh evidence justifying going behind judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1100">bankruptcy notice not invalidly issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1100">discretion to continue bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1100">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 113" id="cs0">5 In the judgment which was the subject of the appeal to the Full Court last year ( Samootin v Wagner [2008] FCA 1066) Flick J referred at [19] to the sequestration order made against the estate of Ms Samootin on 24 May 2006 ( Wagner  Anor v Samootin [2006] FMCA 688). Flick J went on to note at [20] --- [21]:

 20 An application to stay the sequestration order has been dismissed by a judge of this Court: Samootin v Wagner [2006] FCA 689. An appeal against the making of the sequestration order has also been dismissed: Samootin v Wagner [2006] FCA 945.

 21 Thereafter an application was filed by Ms Samootin with the Federal Magistrates Court on 14 March 2007 seeking the annulment of the sequestration order made on 24 May 2006. That application was dismissed: Samootin v Wagner [2007] FMCA 1100.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1066" id="cs1">20 An application to stay the sequestration order has been dismissed by a judge of this Court: Samootin v Wagner [2006] FCA 689. An appeal against the making of the sequestration order has also been dismissed: Samootin v Wagner [2006] FCA 945. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1100" id="cs2">The order was upheld on appeal by Wilcox J on 21 July 2006 (see Samootin v Wagner [2006] FCA 945).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>