Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">consideration of whether an application to the national competition council for a declaration recommendation under s 44f of part iiia of the trade practices act 1974 ('the act') concerning a proposed use by an access seeker of the mt newman and goldsworthy rail lines from the pilbara region to port hedland in the state of western australia, is a 'service' within the meaning of s 44b of the act trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">consideration of the meaning of the term 'service' in s 44b of the act and the meaning of the words of exclusion 'the use of a production process' in the definition of that term and the exception to the exclusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">meaning of production process considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">consideration of whether access sought to a step in a production process also excluded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">consideration of the background to the introduction of part iiia of the act and the vice sought to be addressed by the introduction of part iiia into the act  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">consideration of the principles informing the circumstances in which a judge of the court might elect not to follow an earlier decision of a single judge of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 157">consideration of the principles informing the admissibility of expert evidence  courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">construction of company's articles of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">whether articles require compliance with pre-emptive rights regime for share buy-back</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">relevant circumstances at time of buy-back</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">whether regard may be had to extrinsic materials in interpreting articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">procedure  contempt of court  judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">construction of court orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">use of extrinsic material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">need for certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">relevance of prejudice where alleged uncertainty minor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">applicability of criminal procedure to contempt proceedings  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">exclusion of evidence improperly obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">conversations with persons encountered on premises during execution of search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">whether improperly obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">whether inadmissible as hearsay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">whether admissible as statement of intention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">cross-examination of officer of company on return of subpoena to company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 317">whether part of evidence in the proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 241">procedure [748]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 241">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 241">onus of proof of facts.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">pacific carriers limited v bnp paribas  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">carriage of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">carriage by sea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">delivery of goods without surrendering bills of lading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">indemnity to carrier.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">objective interpretation of commercial documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">letters of indemnity executed by trader in favour of carrier relating to unloading cargo without bills of lading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">where documents also signed by officer of the respondent bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">whether letters of indemnity purported to bind the respondent as an indemnifying party.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">ostensible authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">documents of the kind commonly relied upon and intended to be relied upon by third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 35">whether the assumption made by the appellant that the respondent was party to the letters of indemnity was induced or assisted by the respondent's conduct in such a way that it would be unjust to permit the respondent to depart from the assumption.    gleeson cj, gummow, hayne, callinan and heydon jj. the issues in this appeal are narrower than the claims and cross-claims litigated before hunter j in the supreme court of new south wales [1] , or those aspects of the matter that went to the court of appeal [2] .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 212">procedure [478]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 212">liberty to apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 212">extent to which court may make further orders after formal entry of final order. procedure [750]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 212">declaratory order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 212">consequential relief.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">construction of order of remitter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">extent of administrative appeals tribunal's powers when hearing and determining a matter remitted to it by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">whether it was appropriate that the court determine whether the veteran was entitled to a pension at a special rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">application of estoppel doctrine to the tribunal   judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">construction of order of remitter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1277">extent of tribunal's powers when hearing and determining a matter remitted to it by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether an estoppel can operate to bind the donee of a statutory discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether a representation was sufficiently clear and unambiguous to give rise to an estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether the party seeking to raise an estoppel must have suffered detriment by his reliance on the representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether the decision maker was functus officio</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether a multiplicity of decisions discloses an improper purpose in the exercise of the discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether issue estoppel applies to decisions of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">observations on the use of the term "unfairness" in a substantive rather than procedural sense in administrative law.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether reliance by a decision maker on material from a source other than the complainant himself gives rise to a right to be heard on that material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether such a right is affected by the need to keep the identity of the third-party informant confidential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">whether the criminal deportation policy announced by the appellant minister on 4 may 1983 and the transitional policy announced on 28 march 1984 generated a "legitimate expectation" so as to give rise to a right to be heard in the event of a departure from those policies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1990] FCA 22">observations on the meaning of "legitimate expectation" in administrative law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 21">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 21">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 21">action for recovery of income tax for specified years of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 21">judgment entered for less than amount actually due</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 21">subsequent action for balance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 21">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 202 , 209.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">negotiations for lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">exchange of parts requisite to concluded agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">terms agreed but parts not exchanged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">conduct of proposed tenant leading owner to believe exchange would occur</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">act by owner to detriment in that belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">whether proposed tenant estopped from denying lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">no signed note or memorandum of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">conveyancing act 1919 (n.s.w.), s. 54a(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">contract of sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">instalment contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">time of essence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">failure to pay balance of price on due date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">notice requiring defaults to be remedied by stipulated date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">contract to be rescinded if defaults not remedied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">erroneous inclusion of matter not a default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">equitable estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">conversation between solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">relief against forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 11">whether available when time of essence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">consent orders including undertakings about future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">undertaking extending beyond court's power to restrain conduct by injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 45a, 80 , 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 22 , 23 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">practice (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">court of appeal division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">damages for personal injuries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">subsequent discovery that injuries more serious than appeared at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">power to set aside judgment by reason of changed circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.), ss. 75a (7), (8), (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">rules of the supreme court (n.s.w.), pt 40 , r. 9 (4), pt 42 , rr. 11, 12 (1).  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">personal injuries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">damages found by trial judge reduced by court of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">principles governing interference by appellate court with award of trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1977] HCA 7">whether damages unreasonable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">contribution or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">action by plaintiff against defendant for damages for personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">joinder of third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">prior action in district court arising out of same accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">action by third party against defendant for damages for negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">contributory negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">judgment for third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1950] HCA 22">law reform (miscellaneous provisions) act 1946 (n.s.w.) (no. 33 of 1946), s. 5 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">creditor's petition based on fresh act of bankruptcy where earlier creditor's petition dismissed in prior proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">whether principles of res judicata , issue estoppel or anshun estoppel apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">whether proceedings an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">whether creditor's petition meets the requirements of the bankruptcy act in relation to description and value of security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">whether court should go behind the judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">whether incorrect car registration number made petition defective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">whether incorrect amount of debt in creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1363">whether for other sufficient cause sequestration order ought to be made.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] NSWWCCPD 10" id="cs0">The Arbitrator said (at [80]) that the consent orders did not prevent Manpower from putting in issue Mr Harris's incapacity and it did that by way of the s 74 notice. Whilst it is correct that there is no estoppel in a situation capable of change ( The Doctrine of Res Judicata by Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley, 3 rd ed, 1996 at page 102 and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v The National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598) , and a worker's incapacity is such a situation, where a worker is in receipt of weekly compensation under an order of the Commission, his or her entitlement to compensation continues until there is a further order of the Commission. An employer is entitled to seek that further order by making an application for reconsideration under s 350(3) of the 1987 Act or for review under s 55 of the 1987 Act. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWIRComm 188" id="cs1">

76 In Co-Ownership Land Development Pty Ltd v Queensland Estates Pty Ltd (1973) 47 ALJR 519 , Walsh J said at 522:

 In order that the principle of issue estoppel may apply it ... must be possible to assert without doubt that the issues are identical.

See also Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598 ; (2008) 247 ALR 385 at [117] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSCA 340" id="cs2">See also Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598 ; (2008) 247 ALR 385 , 394-5 for a discussion of res judicata .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWWCCPD 128" id="cs3">The last point to note (though it was not argued by Consolidated, but may be relevant to future claims) is that there is no estoppel in a changing situation ( The Doctrine of Res Judicata by Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley, 3rd edn, 1996, at page 102; O'Donel v Commissioner for Road Transport  Tramways [1938] HCA 15 ; 59 CLR 744 ; Dimovski ; Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v The National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598 at [114] to [116]; Prisk v Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (No 2) [2009] NSWWCCPD 13 at [55] ). A claim for additional lump sum compensation is such a situation.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] QCA 207" id="cs4">See also Hammersley Iron Pty Ltd v National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598 per Weinberg J at [80]-[87] and Owston Nominees No 2 Pty Ltd v Branir Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 629 per Allsop J at [30], [34], [39] and [66].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWWCCPD 13" id="cs5">"

 Whilst I am in general agreement with the above summary, the question of whether a consent award/order can give rise to an issue estoppel (point (vi) above) has been considered in several relevant authorities. Those authorities suggest that, in certain circumstances, issue estoppels can arise from consent awards/orders, though the nature and extent of such an estoppel will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and has not been finally determined ( The Doctrine of Res Judicata by Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley (' Spencer Bower '), third edition, 1996, at [38]). There is no issue estoppel in a changing situation ( Spencer Bower , at p102 and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v The National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598 at [114] to [116]), and a later claim for hearing loss compensation as a result of a further injury is one example of such a situation. This point is succinctly illustrated in Spencer Bower (at [185]):

"An agreement to pay compensation registered under the Workmen's Compensation Acts estopped the employer from disputing liability for the accident; but not from contending that the worker's death did not result from it. "

 The authorities cited in Spencer Bower are Cleverley v Gas Light and Coke Co (1907) 24 TLR 93 and O'Donel v Commissioner for Road Transport [1938] HCA 15 ; (1938) 59 CLR 744 (' O'Donel ').</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1363" id="cs6">A final judgment (such as the decision of Riethmuller FM dismissing the earlier creditor's petition) may affect subsequent proceedings between the same parties in a number of ways, as summarised by Weinberg J in Hamersley Iron Pty Limited v The National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWWCCPD 100" id="cs7">However, the extent to which a consent order may give rise to issue estoppels has not been finally determined ( Spencer Bower , at [38]). There is no issue estoppel in situations capable of change ( Spencer Bower , at p102 and Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v The National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598) , and a later claim for lump sum compensation is one example of such a situation. This point is succinctly illustrated in Spencer Bower (at [185]):

"An agreement to pay compensation registered under the Workmen's Compensation Acts estopped the employer from disputing liability for the accident; but not from contending that the worker's death did not result from it. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 779" id="cs8">1 On 5 May 2008 I delivered judgment in this matter: Hamersley Iron Pty Limited v The National Competition Council [2008] FCA 598. I ordered that the application be dismissed and that each party, if so advised, file and serve short submissions regarding costs. Failing the filing of any such submissions, I indicated that I would order the applicant to pay the respondents' costs, to be taxed in default of agreement. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 33 Exercise of powers and duties</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">dow jones  company inc v gutnick  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">internet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">computer server</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of housed on computer server in united states of america</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">uploaded to world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">viewable at subscription news site on world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">downloaded to computer in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">whether material complained of was published in victoria.  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">single publication rule.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">law of the place of the tort ( lex loci delicti )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">damage to reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">where material complained of was published</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of made comprehensible when downloaded in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">place of plaintiff's reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victorian law governs substantive rights.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service permitted without leave of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">conditions of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of tort committed in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of damage suffered in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action limited to damage to reputation in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service validly effected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victoria a convenient forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 1099">ooooo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">failure to comply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">first order requiring payment of proceeds of sale of named property into designated trust account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">first respondent dissipated proceeds of sale otherwise than in accordance with order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">whether non-compliance with order within reasonable time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">whether wilful disobedience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">whether second respondent had any capacity to comply with order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">second order requiring same payment by a particular date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">respondents without means at that date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">whether either respondent in breach of order they were unable to comply with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">whether onus of proof of inability to comply on respondents contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">range of penalties available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">whether community service order can be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">whether power to order term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">appropriate level of fine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">relevance of other orders made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">judgment in principal proceeding against party in default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">order for costs of contempt proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">appropriate length of default term of imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">citing from="[2007] FCA 137">reduction for partial payment of fine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">imposition of sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">individual guilty of multiple counts of contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">considerations relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">respondent apologised to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">contumacious contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">where no injury to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">financial position of respondent held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 1199">respondent declared guilty of multiple counts of contempt and ordered to pay fines totalling $5,000 and costs on an indemnity basis for part of the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 519">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 519">where respondent in breach of orders of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 519">where charge 2 in statement of charge previously found to be bad for duplicity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 519">where amendment of charge 2 sought by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 519">held no prejudice to respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 519">amendment allowed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 137" id="cs0">37 This leaves the question of contempt by failing to comply with para 1 of the order of 10 June 2005. It should be noted that the statement of charge in the notice of motion alleges contempt against both respondents, but only in one respect. There is no charge of disposing of, transferring or dealing with the Mariners Place property without first giving notice in writing to the applicant no less than 14 days prior to such dealing. There is no charge of failing to sell the property by public auction. The only charge is failing to pay the proceeds of sale (after deduction of the reasonable costs and expenses of sale) into the trust account kept by Kelly  Chapman. In the absence of a specification in para 1 of the order of 10 June 2005 of the time within which such a payment was required, Ms Bell was obliged to pay the proceeds of the sale into the trust account within a reasonable time of receiving them. See Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 at [13] and [41] --- [42]. In any event, the time may not be crucial because, at least by June 2006, when Ms Bell returned from her second trip to Tunisia, she had clearly disposed of all of the proceeds of sale otherwise than by paying them into the trust account, and thereby put it out of her power to comply with the order.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1199" id="cs1">In these proceedings I found the applicant has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent was guilty on four charges of contempt in my judgment in Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518. Today I have heard evidence from the respondent both on affidavit and in the witness box relating to the circumstances in which the contempts occurred and his current attitude in relation to the subject matter of those charges.  I do not accept any explanation that the respondent has sought to give of that behaviour. In the witness-box today he asserted that he had put the meta tag there knowing, as he said, that it would not be visible to the ordinary viewer of the webpage but that it might be seen in some web browsers. The reason he gave for putting the disclaimer in a meta tag, was that he thought that that was above the fold referred to in the order. For the reasons that I gave in Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 , the use of the words 'above the fold' makes no difference to the proper construction of the orders or the flagrancy of the evasion which the use of the meta tag involved.  In my opinion, this breach was quite flagrant, as I described in Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No1) [2006] FCA 518. It was a deliberate attempt to evade the very clear order requiring an active communication by the respondent of the dissociation of his business from the applicant's. The use of the meta tag was calculated to avoid giving effect at all to the order. It was an attempt to disguise the very thing the order required be revealed: namely, the dissociation of the businesses.  Charge 11 involved the use of the HTML meta tag which I described in Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 at [41] - [47]. That conduct was engaged in between at least 1 March 2006, as I found ([2006] FCA 518 at [47]), and at least no later than 24 April 2006, which is the date Ms Than refers to in par 5 of her affidavit of 15 May 2006 as the date on which the disclaimer was noted by her to appear.  Charge 11 involved the use of the HTML meta tag which I described in Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 at [41] - [47]. That conduct was engaged in between at least 1 March 2006, as I found ([2006] FCA 518 at [47]), and at least no later than 24 April 2006, which is the date Ms Than refers to in par 5 of her affidavit of 15 May 2006 as the date on which the disclaimer was noted by her to appear.  The question then arises as to what fine I ought impose on each of the counts that I have found proved and for which I have convicted the respondent. Charge 6 involved the use of the business name Simply Natural Floorcoverings with 'floorcoverings' as one word on the web site for a period that commenced at least on 19 January 2006 and continued at least to 2 March 2006, as I found in Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 at [37] and [38]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 602" id="cs2">8 That animation was described in my earlier judgment, Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 at [6] - [8] and [30]-[32]. However, it seems to me that there is a slight difference between the evidence on the previous occasion and that today in that what I recorded in [2006] FCA 518 at [31] as an observation about the form of the evidence on that occasion suggested that the spiral or roll design itself appeared initially on the screen, whereas in fact, the evidence today satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that what initially appeared on the screen to the left-hand side during the period between 16 February 2006 and 20 March 2006 was a line that then rolled into the carpet roll or spiral shape, and then unravelled as it passed across to the right-hand side of the screen. In screen grab number 1 that Mr Dowe took, the spiral shape distinctly appears close to but distinctly to the left-hand side of the computer screen.  8 That animation was described in my earlier judgment, Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 at [6] - [8] and [30]-[32]. However, it seems to me that there is a slight difference between the evidence on the previous occasion and that today in that what I recorded in [2006] FCA 518 at [31] as an observation about the form of the evidence on that occasion suggested that the spiral or roll design itself appeared initially on the screen, whereas in fact, the evidence today satisfies me beyond reasonable doubt that what initially appeared on the screen to the left-hand side during the period between 16 February 2006 and 20 March 2006 was a line that then rolled into the carpet roll or spiral shape, and then unravelled as it passed across to the right-hand side of the screen. In screen grab number 1 that Mr Dowe took, the spiral shape distinctly appears close to but distinctly to the left-hand side of the computer screen. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 519" id="cs3">1 When I was delivering my judgment ex tempore in this matter on 12 April 2006, it occurred to me for the reasons I then gave ( Natural Floor Covering Centre Pty Ltd v Monamy (No 1) [2006] FCA 518 at [34] - [35] ('the first judgment') that charge 2 was bad for duplicity: Johnson v Miller [1937] HCA 77 ; (1937) 59 CLR 467. Then Dixon J said (59 CLR at 489-490):

 'For, in many cases, evidence of more than one offence cannot be admitted, and under one charge to take evidence of a number of separate instances of the commission of the same offence because each will indifferently fit the complaint is to pursue a course contrary to law. It cannot be enough to require the complainant to elect among the instances he has proved after his evidence has been given in full.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">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>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 34A Referral of proceeding for alternative dispute resolution process</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 42A Discontinuance, dismissal, reinstatement etc. of application</title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l4">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 64 Ministers of State</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l7">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">challenge to two summonses issued by second respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether summonses invalid because second respondent failed to record in writing reasons for issuing summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether summonses invalid because second respondent failed to record in accordance with act reasons in writing for issuing summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second respondent could not have been satisfied that it was reasonable in all circumstances to issue summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second summons invalid because it did not require applicant to give evidence as "witness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second summons invalid because it was not accompanied by written statement of rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second summons invalid because copy of determination did not accompany summons or, alternatively, determination invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether second respondent exercised power to issue summons correctly   held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">all grounds of challenge to summonses fail.    administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">challenge to authorisation and determination made by resolution of board of first respondent under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">instrument authorised investigation and determined it to be special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because chair of board did not convene or attend meeting at which determination made and determination in writing not under hand of chair of board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because purposes stated in determination exceed scope of investigation under act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board did not actually draw conclusion as to whether ordinary police methods of investigation were likely to be effective in investigating federally relevant criminal activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because of various deficiencies in resolution of board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board did not resolve class or classes of persons who were to be able to participate in investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board purported to consent to first respondent conducting investigation or intelligence operation under a law of a state without identifying law of state in question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board purported to authorise investigation of allegations comprising offences which head of special investigation suspects may be directly or indirectly connected with, or may be part of, course of activity involving commission of offences referred to earlier in determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">whether determination invalid because board did not set out findings on material questions of fact and refer to evidence or other material on which those findings were based   held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2009] FCA 759">all grounds of challenge to determination fail.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">proposed examinations under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">applicants seeking judicial review in relation to special investigation authorisation and determination made by first respondent and summonses issued to applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether objective element in test to be applied by court in reviewing examiners' decisions to issue summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether examiners' reasons required under act must include findings on material questions of fact or reference to evidence or other material on which findings based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether, as part of requirement under act that notations to summonses be accompanied by statement setting out rights and obligations, statement must set out rights and obligations of persons "otherwise given" summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether extensions of special investigation authorisation and determination invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether summonses oppressive in way which means issuing of summonses beyond power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether summonses issued pursuant to valid resolution of first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">whether balance of convenience favours grant of injunctions    held: interlocutory injunctions refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 642">insufficient prospects of success on five of six grounds to justify restraining examiners from conducting proposed examinations and in relation to sixth ground, on which respondents conceded serious question to be tried, balance of convenience favours refusal of relief.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 119">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 119">notice served by australian crime commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 119">notice requires production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 119">need for documents to be " specified "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 119">ambit of power conferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 119">reasonableness of time permitted for production    statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 119">statutory duty to record reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] VSC 297">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] VSC 297">subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] VSC 297">application to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] VSC 297">legitimate forensic purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] VSC 297">criminal trial re refusal to be sworn before examiner under australian crime commission act 2002 (acc act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">execution of search warrant issued under s 3e of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">a ' copy of the warrant ' within the meaning of s 3h(1) not made available to the occupier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">whether execution of the warrant was rendered unlawful because of non-compliance with s 3h(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">consideration of purpose of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">held: the crimes act discloses an intention that non-compliance with s 3h(1) renders unlawful the execution of the warrant practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">leave sought at hearing to amend notice of appeal, inter alia , to include the addition of two new grounds of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">proposed grounds concerned an issue not argued below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">no evidence before the court as to why issue not argued below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">no evidence before the court as to why expedient in interests of justice to allow the issue to be argued on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">held: leave to amend notice of appeal only if new grounds deleted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 96">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 96">challenge to validity of search warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 96">challenge depended on whether board of australian crime commission had authorised special investigation "in writing" and determined "in writing" that it was a special investigation, as required by s 7c of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 96">board resolved in terms of a pre-prepared draft "instrument" provided to board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 96">that document, not signed by or on behalf of board, nonetheless purported to be a present authorisation and determination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">powers of search and seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">s 3e search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">copy of search warrant made available to occupier pursuant to s 3h(1) incomplete</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">whether execution of warrant unlawful because the copy provided to the occupier did not contain the name of the issuing officer and the time at which the warrant expired</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">whether execution of search warrant unlawful because the copy provided to the occupier did not have attached the guidelines for claiming legal professional privilege administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">powers of search and seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">s 3e search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">seizure of laptop computer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">whether executing officer had reasonable grounds for suspecting laptop contained evidential material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">where contents of laptop computer not inspected prior to seizure legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">powers of search and seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">s 3e search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">validity of execution of search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">guidelines for treatment of claims of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">whether possible to lawfully seize an item the subject of a disputed claim of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 27">where documents the subject of a claim of legal professional privilege inspected by australian federal police during execution of search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">validity of board determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">whether adoption by resolution of a draft instrument satisfied requirement that the board 'determine, in writing' the matters contained in the draft instrument under s 7c(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">whether wording of determination satisfied s 7c(1)(e) of the act administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">powers of search and seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 16">whether issuing officer provided with adequate materials on application for search warrants under s 22 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">courts and tribunals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">administrative decisions tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">retail leases division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">unconscionable conduct claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">whether tribunal validly constituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">whether decision of tribunal invalid because of participation of non-judicial members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">whether invalidity saved by s81(3) administrative decisions tribunal act 1997  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">validating acts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">retrospectivity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">application of retrospective act to pending proceedings the subject of an appeal by way of rehearing  retail leases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">unconscionable conduct claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 261">unconscionability under s62b retail leases act 1994</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">abolition of privilege against self-incrimination and grant of use immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">whether impermissibly interferes with state courts. statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">amending or abrogating the common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">one australian common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">limited legislative competence of commonwealth and state parliaments to abrogate the common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">effect of abrogation by the commonwealth parliament  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">statutory duty to record reasons for a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">person summoned to appear at examination under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">whether statute impliedly confers a right on a witness to be given the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">purpose of the statutory provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">no right to reasons under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">australian crime commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">appeal from a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">examination for purposes of a 'special operation/investigation'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">where appellant not yet charged but claimed that a charge was imminent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 101">whether australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) abrogates privilege against self-incrimination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">overseas interest income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">derivation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">source of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">offshore information notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">requirements for issue of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">form and contents of notice   constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">incidental power -incontestable tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">compulsory acquisition of property.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">who required to hold reasonable belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">statutory purpose of offshore information notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1492">ultra vires.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">criminal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">listening devices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">authority to use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">judge empowered to authorize use of listening device</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">"ether power to authorize use included power to authorize entry on to premises to install device</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">validity of authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">invasion of privacy act 1971 (q.), ss. 43 , 46 (1).   police</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">listening devices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">offence under state law to use without obtaining authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">federal police not required to obtain "licence or permission" under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">"ether federal police enabled to use listening device without obtaining authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">invasion of privacy act 1971 (q.), ss. 43 , 46 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1994] HCA 15">australian federal police act 1979 (cth), ss. 9 , 12 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">justices (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">whether justice must entertain suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">facts to found reasonable suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">sworn complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">relevance of statements otherwise than on oath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">the criminal code (q.), s. 679.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">notices pursuant to s.155 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">validity of notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">whether exposure of person to liability for pecuniary penalty will excuse from furnishing information and producing documents as required by notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">necessary degree of certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">necessary element of relatedness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">where notice is partially invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1982] FCA 17">harsh, oppressive and unreasonable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">challenge to summons issued under s 28(1) of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) and subsequent examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether the summons was invalid because it stated that appellant was to appear before "an" examiner and not "the" examiner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether failure to attach to the summons a variation to the determination of the acc board meant that the requirements of s 28(2) were not met. held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the use of "an examiner" does not invalidate the summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the determination attached to the summons met the requirements of s 28(2).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">challenge to a notice to produce issued under s 29 of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) and production of things pursuant to the notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether the notice was invalid because it failed to specify person to whom production was to be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether production was unlawful because they were not produced to the relevant person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">meaning of "produce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">whether the notice was invalid because it called for production of things "forthwith". held: appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the notice, read as a whole, makes clear that the things were to be produced to the examiner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">the word "produce" in s 29(1) does not require the receiver to take actual physical possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 82">"forthwith" was not an unreasonable time to require production.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 82" id="cs0">1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Besanko J on 14 September 2009: Egglishaw v Australian Crime Commission (No 3) [2009] FCA 1027. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 7C Functions of the Board</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 28 Power to summon witnesses and take evidence</title>
<title id="l3">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 29 Power to obtain documents</title>
<title id="l4">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 29A Disclosure of summons or notice etc. may be prohibited</title>
<title id="l5">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 - SECT 29B Offences of disclosure</title>
<title id="l6">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l7">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 13 Headings, schedules, marginal notes, footnotes and endnotes</title>
<title id="l8">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l9">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3E When search warrants can be issued</title>
<title id="l10">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3H Details of warrant to be given to occupier etc.</title>
<title id="l11">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 28 Interfering with political liberty</title>
<title id="l12">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l13">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 234 Customs offences</title>
<title id="l14">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l15">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 264 Commissioner may require information and evidence</title>
<title id="l16">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l17">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT 2007 (NO. 168, 2007) </title>
<title id="l18">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l19">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 25 Hearings</title>
<title id="l20">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 28 Power to summon witnesses and take evidence</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 336">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 336">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 336">application to vary interlocutory orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 336">application to strike out application and statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">banking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">appeal against findings of contraventions of sections of the banking act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">whether appellant was engaged in a "banking business"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">where it had been established that the appellant had made a loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that the making of the loan by the appellant was enough to establish that the appellant had engaged in the business of banking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that it need only be established that a person proposes to engage in banking business to enliven s 65a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that the evidence was sufficient to enliven s 65a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that orders made under s 65a were appropriate and properly made constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">appeal from judgment that section 65a of the banking act is not unconstitutional</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">whether s 65a supported by s 51(xiii) of the constitution (the banking power)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that s 65a is clearly a valid exercise of the power derived from s 51(xiii) (the banking power) and s 51(xxxix) (the incidental power) of the constitution  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">appeal from judgment that section 65a of the banking act is not unconstitutional</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">whether interlocutory restraining orders imposed on the appellant amounted to acquisitions not "on just terms" in contravention of s 51(xxxi) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that the restraining orders did not amount to an acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that in any case s 51(xxxi) would have no application in this case as to require the provision of just terms in the imposition of restraints would defeat the purpose of the restraint itself constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">appeal from judgment that section 65a of the banking act is not unconstitutional</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">whether orders imposed under s 65a amount to a conviction of committing contraventions of the banking act without criminal trial by jury in contravention of s 80 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that the appellant has not been convicted of any crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that s 65a contains a civil procedure to provide remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that s 80 has no application to procedures of the kind in s 65a constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">appeal from judgment that section 65a of the banking act is not unconstitutional</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">whether s 65a offends against the separation of powers in the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that s 65a does not confer on the court any legislative function practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">appeal against finding that proceedings brought against the appellant were not an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">whether principal proceedings were brought for a collateral purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that the complaints made do not support the contention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 88">held that there was no abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1398">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1398">application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment dismissing motion to stay or summarily dismiss proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1398">whether interlocutory judgment attended with sufficient doubt to warrant leave being granted.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 88" id="cs0">

42 The same complaints have been put and rejected on three previous occasions by judges of this Court. Justice Merkel rejected the argument: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 2) [2006] FCA 336. Justice Tracey first rejected the argument in Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 4) [2006] FCA 1339. He rejected the argument for the second time at the trial of this matter. 43 The appellant sought leave to appeal from orders made by Tracey J in Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 4) [2006] FCA 1339 but leave was refused by Weinberg J: Siminton v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2006] FCA 1398. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1398" id="cs1">Tracey J ordered that Mr Siminton's application be dismissed with costs on 6 October 2006. His Honour gave reasons for that decision in the form of a "ruling" delivered on that same day: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v David Robert Siminton (No 4) [2006] FCA 1339. He noted that a number of the matters raised by Mr Siminton had been agitated before another judge of this Court, Merkel J, earlier this year: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v Siminton (No 2) [2006] FCA 336. However, Tracey J also noted that Mr Siminton had raised what his Honour described as a "novel complaint", namely that the proceeding had been brought unconstitutionally because it was said to provide for the acquisition of Mr Siminton's property by APRA, or the Commonwealth, without just terms. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">failure to provide adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">primary judge set aside reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">whether reasons or decision should be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">power of tribunal to vary decision or orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">power did not extend to vary reasons provided for existing decision civil aviation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 137">source of power in civil aviation regulations to vary conditions of certificate of approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 49">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 49">adequacy of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 49">whether failure of tribunal to provide adequate reasons error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 49">whether error of law connotes question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 49">appropriate order where failure to provide adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal affirming decisions to cancel australian passport and issue adverse security assessment in relation to applicant under australian security intelligence organisation act 1979 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">whether in conducting review of decisions the tribunal erred in law in preventing applicant's legal representatives from having access to all of the evidence and submissions made by the respondents in reliance on security certificates issued by the attorney-general under ss 36 , 39a and 39b of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) where no issue was taken before the tribunal as to the validity of the certificates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">no error in law in tribunal failing to disregard certificates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">any challenge to validity of certificates could not give rise to a question of law amenable to resolution by the court under s 44(1) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">abandonment of ground of appeal due to failure of applicant's legal representatives to require tribunal to send all documents before it to the court under s 46(1) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">failure of the applicant's legal representative to challenge the attorney-general's decision to issue the certificates under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth), or s 75(v) of the commonwealth constitution  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">challenge to constitutional validity of ss 39a and 39b of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) where tribunal presided over by ch iii judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">whether mandated procedures are incompatible with powers and functions of a ch iii judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">tribunal's powers and functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">administrative not judicial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">nature of appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">persona designate with consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">no incompatibility in the present case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">whether security certificates invalid on their face</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 128">no condition of validity beyond attorney-general's certification of his opinion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 884">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 884">claim for newstart allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 884">meaning of 'unemployed' in s 593(1) of the social security act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 884">necessity for administrative appeals tribunal to provide sufficient reasons to enable a court to ascertain whether there have been errors in the decision-making process held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 884">a person will be 'unemployed' within the meaning of s 593(1) of the act if that person is without work or employment and that situation is both temporary and involuntary. if a person is carrying on business or engaged in work with a view of profit, such a person could not be considered to be 'unemployed' for the purposes of s 593(1). held further</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 884">the reasons for the tribunal's decision were not so wanting as to give rise to an error of law.</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="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">collector of customs v agfa-gevaert limited    administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">administrative appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">distinction between questions of fact and questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether ordinary or non-legal technical meaning of word is question of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether effect or construction of term whose meaning is established is question of law.  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">revenue statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">composite phrase which taken as a whole has no trade meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">whether error of law to construe composite phrase by giving trade meaning to some words in phrase and ordinary meaning to remaining words in phrase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 36">relationship between trade meaning and ordinary meaning.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">ascertainment of assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">distinction between income and capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">compensation received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">termination of agreement for manufacture and sale of motor vehicle engine components over period of years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">whether compensation for termination a compensation for abandonment of part of the taxpayer's profit-making structure.  income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">s.25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 483">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 483">unemployment benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 483">eligibility for benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 483">meaning of "unemployed"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 483">whether the statement of reasons sufficiently exposed the reasoning of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 483">whether they included its findings of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 483">whether the learned primary judge erred in refusing to allow the appeal notwithstanding his finding of deficiencies in the reasoning of the tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">repatriation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">death of former member of armed forces from carcinoma</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">refusal by repatriation review tribunal to grant applicant's claim for war widow's pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">whether on appeal to federal court the whole decision of the tribunal was open to review by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 194">whether on the evidence before it the tribunal could conclude that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the member's death did not arise out of or was not attributable to war service.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">repatriation pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">incapacity arising out of or attributable to war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">connexion between physical condition and war service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that grounds insufficient to grant claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">repatriation act 1920 (cth), ss. 24aa, 47, 101, 107vzzb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 10">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), ss. 25 , 43 , 44 (1).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l5">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 25D Content of statements of reasons for decisions</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l8">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l9">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 593 Qualification for newstart allowance</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">appellant s395/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  appellant s396/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">particular social group identified as homosexual men in bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether error of law by refugee review tribunal in finding that no real chance of persecution because appellants conducted themselves discreetly and would continue to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether finding had effect of requiring appellants to act discreetly to avoid persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether need to act discreetly to avoid serious harm constituted persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v haji ibrahim  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">clan-based conflict in somalia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">whether persecution on convention grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">use of terms "civil war", "civil conflict" and "systematic persecution"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 55">whether convention definition permits or requires examination of the "motivation" for or "objects of" a "civil war" or "civil conflict" or demonstration of a "differential operation" upon an applicant's social group.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">ascertainment of assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">distinction between income and capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">compensation received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">termination of agreement for manufacture and sale of motor vehicle engine components over period of years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">whether compensation for termination a compensation for abandonment of part of the taxpayer's profit-making structure.  income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 456">s.25</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] RRTA 595" id="cs0">Erduran v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 814 (27 June 2002). N03 / 47474 [2004] RRTA 292 (14 April 2004). Amnesty International Report 2008 - Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories AZAAB -v- Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 248 (27 March 2009) The applicant's agent also submitted the signed original of the statutory declaration (declared by the applicant [in] May 2009 the draft of which was submitted to the Tribunal [in] June 2009) to the Tribunal. SUMMARY OF THE CLAIMS
 The applicant has given a variety of reasons as to why she does not wish to return to Israel: (visa application form) this situation (like terrorists) bombing busses and restaurants in the middle of the day the people in Israel just got used to this situation so they don't care anymore [for] one another. So I just can't live like that, I can't go back home to my country and just live in fear all the time, and watch my neighbours, friends or even my family die.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 395 Membership of Migration Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>