Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1009">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1009">application for an order seeking a civil penalty under s 285f(4) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) (the act) for a breach of s 285e of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1009">whether respondent provided adequate notice regarding his intention to exercise his power under ss 285b or 285c of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1009">whether the respondent in exercise of his power under the act intentionally hindered or obstructed any employer or employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1009">application allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">penalties imposed by s 178 of workplace relations act 1996 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">whether power to impose penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">whether industrial relations commission ("commission") had jurisdiction to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">construction of dispute resolution clause in certified agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">whether application for constitutional writs is an "appeal"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">whether commission precluded from dealing with dispute because prior reference of dispute to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">whether s 127 of the act contains an exclusive code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 84">whether reference to 'orders' in s 178 of the act include those made under s 127 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">amcor ltd v construction, forestry, mining and energy union;  minister for employment and workplace relations v construction, forestry, mining and energy union  industrial law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">certified agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">corporate demerger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">business transferred to subsidiary and employees immediately re-employed on same terms and conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">change in identity of employer though no change in duties of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">whether positions in a business had become redundant and employees had been retrenched</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">whether employees entitled to redundancy payments under the agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 10">relevance of termination and succession provisions of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">s. 592</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">civil liability of directors for company's debts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">whether there were reasonable grounds to expect that the company would not be able to pay all its debts as and when they became due</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">meaning of "reasonable grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">meaning of "debt incurred"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">meaning of "due"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">duties owed by passive directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">defence under s. 592</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">whether director had reasonable cause to expect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 114">meaning of "reasonable cause".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">justices (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">whether justice must entertain suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">facts to found reasonable suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">sworn complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">relevance of statements otherwise than on oath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">the criminal code (q.), s. 679.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">arbitration (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">interpretation of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">alleged breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">occupational description</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">principles of interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">drafting error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">logical absurdity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">function of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">appeal from industrial magistrate to full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">effect of repeal of conciliation and arbitration act 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">jurisdiction of single judge to hear appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">inadequacy of reasons for primary decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">duty to give reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">rationale and content</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">function of appeal court where inadequate reasons but no conflict on evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">local government officers (western australia) award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">assistant welfare officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">whether discharging duties of social welfare officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">"initiate, co-ordinate and promote social welfare activities".  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">duty of judge or magistrate to give reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">rationale and content  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">appeal from industrial magistrate imposing penalties under s.119 of conciliation and arbitration act 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.25">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">jurisdiction exerciseable by single judge under industrial relations act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.26">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">transitional provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.27">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">industrial relations (consequential provisions) act 1988  words phrases and maxims "appoint", "initiate", "co-ordinate", "promote".  stone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.28">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">legal systems and lawyers' reasonings (1968)  pearce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.29">cited from="[1989] FCA 369">statutory interpretation in australia 2nd ed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to require person to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notices to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">delegation of commissioner's power to subordinate officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">facsimile of delegate's signature affixed to notice without his knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">signatory of notice authorized so to sign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">validity of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s 264(1)+.   + section 264(1) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) provides: taxpayer or not, including any officer employed in or in connexion with any department of a government or by any public authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">(a) to furnish him with such information as he may require; and (b) to attend and give evidence before him or before any officer authorized by him in that behalf concerning his or any other person's income or assessment, and may require him to produce all books, documents and other papers whatever in his custody or under his control relating thereto."  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">duty of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">notice to attend to give evidence and produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether solicitor obliged to comply with notice without client's consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether legal privilege confined to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings.  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">to have full and free access to all buildings, places, books, documents and other papers for purposes of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">vouchers in locked room at bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">key in unlocked drawer in manager's office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">refusal to unlock door</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">whether bank under duty to locate or deliver particular documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[1983] HCA 47">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth),s. 263.*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 690">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 690">alleged contravention of s.767(1) of the workplace relations act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 690">consideration of whether "otherwise an improper manner" limited in operation by terms of s.767(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 690">whether improper conduct requires intent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 834">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 834">consideration of further steps to be taken upon referral of the proceedings to the primary judge for further consideration consequent upon orders of the full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">principles of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">industrial agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">relevance of objective background facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">relevance of subsequent conduct  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">construction of greenfield workplace agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">construction of ss 760 , 767 and 768 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">nature of right of entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">purpose of entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 90">relevance of state of mind to purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of a pecuniary penalty to be imposed on three respondent unions in respect of contraventions of s 767(1) and s 768(1) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) arising out of entry by officials of the unions to premises at the abbot point coal terminal on 13 february 2009 and entry to those premises by officials of two respondent unions on 5 march 2009</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of the criteria to be applied in determining the amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of previous contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of the objects of the legislation, the counter-factual, context and circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of whether a pecuniary penalty ought to be paid to the applicant or to the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of whether an order for costs ought to be made in favour of the applicant under s 824 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of the continuing application of that act by operation of the fair work (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 690" id="cs0">It was put that there was controversy about this issue. The respondent pointed to the judgment of Greenwood J in John Holland v CFMEU [2009] FCA 786 ; (2009) 186 IR 408 at [181] where his Honour said:
 "The quality of the conduct engaged, is hindering and obstructing any person and the second limb engaging the notion of otherwise acting in an improper manner, takes its character from intentional acts of hindrance and obstruction. "
  Here both parties have made submissions about the decision at first instance of Greenwood J in John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 786 ; (2009) 186 IR 408. That was a case that turned on whether or not union officials have a valid right of entry onto a work site and, once again, was a s 760 case, not a s 756 case. The significance of this decision lies in Greenwood J's observations about the nature of conduct constituting "acting in an improper manner" and the extent to which such conduct requires intent. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 834" id="cs1">Order 3 contemplates, it seems to me, that the primary judge is to give further consideration to those issues identified by the Full Court which were either not addressed in the primary reasons in resolving the questions agreed by the parties for resolution set out at [24] of the reasons for judgment of 24 July 2009 ( John Holland Pty Ltd v [CFMEU] [2009] FCA 786) or were addressed on a footing which having regard to the reasons of Dowsett J (Spender J agreeing) reflect the application of an incorrect test for determining whether contraventions of the sections are made out by the applicant. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 90" id="cs2"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 865" id="cs3">These reasons are to be read in conjunction with the reasons for judgment in John Holland Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 786. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 39 Injunction against unlawful industrial action</title>
<title id="l2">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 71 ABC Commissioner intervention in court proceedings</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l4">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l5">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1991 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l6">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l8">WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1995 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">application to transfer proceedings from victoria district registry to western australia district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">factors relevant to exercise of discretion to transfer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">no single highly compelling factor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">many inconveniences counterbalanced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">more witnesses will suffer inconvenience if proceedings remain in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">cause of action arose in, and subject matter principally involves, western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 933">application granted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 933" id="cs0">In its written submissions, Buru usefully summarised the factors relevant to the exercise of the discretion as follows: the place where the cause of action arose ( National Mutual at 162); the location of parties and witnesses ( Jacobs v Claudius Enterprises Pty Ltd (1985) ATPR 40-511 at 46,078 (" Jacobs ")); the expense and prejudice likely to the respective parties ( Jacobs at 46,078); the stage of the proceedings ( National Mutual at 162 and Maxipoint Cultivation Technologies Pty Ltd v Points Direct Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 393 at [4] ); the governing law of the transactions ( Aquila Resources Limited v Pasminco Limited [2004] FCA 39 at [36] ); the existence of related proceedings which may be case managed jointly ( Wyllie Group Pty Ltd v ANZ Securities Ltd [2000] FCA 1382 at [14] - [19]); the convenience of the court ( Garrett v Macks [2009] FCA 253 at [4] ); and the balance of convenience ( Jacobs at 46,078). The Evidence
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 104 Appeal against decision of trustee in respect of proof [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 156A Consent to act as trustee [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 178 Appeal to Court against trustee's decision etc.</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 48 Change of venue</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 670">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 670">proposed desalination plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 670">application for review of alleged decision that certain preliminary works did not require approval under the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 670">whether there was a decision in regard to preliminary works excluded from referral to federal minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 670">whether the making of that alleged decision was beyond the power of the federal minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 670">whether failure to consider potential greenhouse gas emissions and impact on matters of national environmental significance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">environmental law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">project for deepening shipping channels in port phillip bay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">referral under environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">changes in project between referral and approval costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">costs in public interest litigation  statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">subordinate legislation as aid to construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">public interest litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">applicant brought proceeding in public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">applicant wholly unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">whether public interest nature of proceeding sufficient reason to deny costs to successful respondents. held : costs awarded to the successful respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">public interest considerations relevant but not sufficient to alter usual rule that costs follow the event.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">'public interest' litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">appeal unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">whether costs should follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">whether appropriate to depart from general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">public interest litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 200">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 200">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 200">subsequent opportunity sought to make submissions as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 200">need to make submissions during the hearing of the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 200">appeals from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 200">public interest litigation</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 466" id="cs0">Even when wound together these "public interest" strands lack strength. As already noted, there is no general "public interest" exception to the operation of the ordinary "rule". It is necessary for an unsuccessful party who wishes to obtain a more beneficial costs order to point to particular aspects of the litigation which warrant the orders sought. The legislative provisions do not assist LFF's case. An object of promotion of a co-operative approach to the protection of the environment has no implications for the determination of costs questions when co-operation gives way to litigation. The expanded standing provisions in s 487 do not, as Heerey J held in Your Water Your Say Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (No 2) [2008] FCA 900 at [8] "carry any particular significance on the issue of costs. " The standing provision is not designed to encourage litigation and, in any event, the issue would not arise unless the unsuccessful applicant had standing in the first place. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 200" id="cs1">9 Second, " there is no special costs regime applicable to 'public interest' litigation ": Save the Ridge Inc v Commonwealth [2006] FCAFC 51 at [6] , [2006] FCAFC 51 ; 230 ALR 411 at 413 per Black CJ, Moore and Emmett JJ. Similarly, in rejecting a broadly expressed submission as to " public interest litigation ", Gummow J (when sitting as a Judge of this Court), has observed that " there are no special categories which control the general discretion given by s 43 ": Council of the Municipality of Botany v Secretary, Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (1992) 34 FCR 412 at 416. But a legitimate public interest in the importance of the issues resolved is a factor that may be taken into account when exercising the discretion conferred by s 43. Instances can be provided where the public interest has been a factor relied upon in not making an order for costs (eg, Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts [2008] FCA 8 at [68] ---[75] [2008] FCA 8 ; , 165 FCR 211 at 227---8) or in making an order confining costs to only part of the costs otherwise payable (eg, Wilderness Society Inc v Minister for Environment and Water Resources [2008] FCAFC 19 , 101 ALD 1) ; instances can also be provided where such a factor has not prevailed (eg, Your Water Your Say Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage  the Arts (No 2) [2008] FCA 900). Some of the authorities relevant to a discretionary power to order the payment of costs and the public interest, it may be noted, have been usefully collated and discussed by Professor Campbell in ' Public Interest Costs Orders ' [1998] AdelLawRw 20 ; (1998) 20 Adel L Rev 245. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l1">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 75 Does the proposed action need approval?</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1817">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1817">motion for stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1817">referral by county court of victoria to victorian civil and administrative tribunal ('vcat') of issue whether a guardian or an administrator should be appointed for the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1817">whether stay should be granted pending outcome of determination of vcat</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 351" id="cs0">25 On 1 February 2007, Heerey J heard argument seeking leave to appeal the decision of the Court given on 20 December 2006, and dismissed the application with costs: Bahonko v Nurses Board of Victoria [2007] FCA 71. I have been informed by senior counsel for the first respondent that on 21 February 2007 the applicant has sought special leave to appeal in the High Court of Australia the decision of Heerey J.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">GUARDIANSHIP AND ADMINISTRATION ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l4">Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 - SECT 66 Matters before a Court</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">o 15a r 6 of the federal court rules 1979 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">admissibility of evidence not complying with strict rules of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">character of preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">applicant's reasonable cause to believe</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">application for preliminary discovery is interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">application ancillary to underlying federal 'matter'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">discretion to waive rules of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1560">undue expense and delay.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">application for discovery under o15a r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">whether sufficient evidence of the necessary elements of the potential causes of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">consideration of whether the proportionate liability provisions in pt ivaa of the wrongs act 1958 (vic) (' wrongs act ') apply to the pleaded causes of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">where pt ivaa provisions are applicable according to its own terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">where commonwealth legislation "otherwise provides"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">provisions are not picked up by s 79 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1216">where contributing fault plea not available to respondents under certain provisions of the corporations act 2001 (cth) and australian securities and investments commission act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">federal court rules order 15a rule 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">whether reasonable cause to believe that applicant has or may have right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">asserted claims for breach of warranty, misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">low threshold requirement for reasonable belief, however belief must amount to more than a mere possibility or speculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">entitlement to preliminary discovery in order for applicant to ascertain defences available to respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">representations made as to future financial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">onus on respondent to show reasonableness of future representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">preliminary discovery appropriate in relation to future representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">application for preliminary discovery otherwise denied trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">representations as to future financial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">federal court rules , o 15a, r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">whether reasonable cause to believe the applicant may have a right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">whether applicant has insufficient information to enable a decision to be made to commence proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1999] FCA 549">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1999] FCA 549">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1999] FCA 549">federal court rules , o 15a, r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1999] FCA 549">whether there is reasonable cause to believe the applicant may have a right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1999] FCA 549">whether all reasonable inquiries have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1999] FCA 549">whether applicant has insufficient information to enable a decision to be made to commence proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">discovery before action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">order analogous to anton piller order to ensure preservation of information in computer data base</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">construction of order 15a rule 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">rule is designed to facilitate what has been called "fishing"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">rule beneficial and to be given fullest scope its language reasonably allows</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">discretion of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 500">case where not reasonable to require further inquiry to be made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">final or interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of extension of time to proceed against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether civil right amounting to $3,000 involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">special leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">grounds for grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">judiciary act 1903-1960 (cth), s. 35 (1) (a).  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">third party insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">unidentified vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">extension of time to institute proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">considerations applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">review of exercise of discretion on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">right of further appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.17">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.18">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether second application lies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.19">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">traffic act 1925 (tas.), s. 65a*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.20">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">supreme court civil procedure act 1932 (tas.), s. 45 (b).  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.21">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">solicitor and client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.22">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">reliance by client on advice of solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.23">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether client may subsequently resile from decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.24">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action not brought within prescribed time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.25">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">application to extend time.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">application for leave to cross-examine deponent of affidavit of discovery and for orders for further and better discovery, production of documents and particular discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">where proceedings had not commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">whether o 15, r 8 of the federal court rules applies to o 15a r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">whether affidavit of discovery insufficient    held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">application allowed in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">order for further affidavit of discovery but no order for cross-examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">order for production of documents the subject of a claim for privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">reasonable grounds for being fairly certain that other relevant documents exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1518">insufficiency of affidavit of discovery appeared on its face.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">leave granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">appeal allowed practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">reasonable cause to believe</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">trade practices claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 39">no evidence of loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">pre-action discovery against potential parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">elements required to be established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">whether the applicant may have a cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">whether applicant has after reasonable enquiries been unable to obtain sufficient information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">whether the respondent has or has had or is likely to have or have had possession of documents that may assist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">whether the discretion to order discovery should be exercised and if so how</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">the costs of the application, of compliance with any orders and security for the costs of compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">rules of the supreme court 1971 (wa) o 26a r 4 and o 26a r 7  the rule in barnes v addy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">application to actions against persons participating in breaches of duty by an administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">first and second limbs of the rule in barnes   administrator de son tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">application to persons acting after grant of administration  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">application of limitation act 1935 (wa) 2 47 to persons liable under the rule in barnes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">application to persons liable as administrators de son tort  laches</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">delay and acquiescence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">delay permitting a situation to arise which it would be unjust to disturb  abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">delay producing an abuse of process  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">conferral prior to making an application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">citing from="[2008] WASC 51">what constitutes conferral for the purposes of o 59 r 9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 60">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 60">scope of privative provisions in the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 60">review proceedings under s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) relying on the hickman provisos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 60">review of the commissioner's exercise or failure to exercise his discretion under s 227(3) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) to remit the whole or part of the additional tax payable by a taxpayer under s 226k estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 60">availability of anshun estoppel following the dismissal, under order 35a rule 3(1)(a) of the federal court rules , of an appeal against an appealable objection decision under the taxation administration act 1953 (cth), as a result of an applicant's default by failing to attend a directions hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 60">availability of anshun estoppel following recovery proceedings in the supreme court of new south wales</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1518" id="cs0">The fact that O 15A incorporates a number of processes and obligations in O 15 is established by the authorities. I refer to Global Intertrade Pty Ltd v Adelaide Festival Centre Trust [1999] FCA 162 (" Global Intertrade "); Tyco Australia Pty Limited v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 115 ; Imperial Chemical Industries Plc v Echo Tasmanian Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1731. However, the fact that O 15A incorporates certain parts of O 15 does not mean that it incorporates all parts of the Order. Order 15A does incorporate the provisions of O 15 dealing with inspection (that is, Division 2) but that is done expressly by O 15A r 10. By contrast, O 15 r 8 is a free-standing power available in cases of discovery in existing proceedings. It is not expressly incorporated into O 15A and there is no compelling reason to think that it was intended to be available in a case where an applicant does not have sufficient information to enable a decision to be made whether to commence a proceeding in this Court, that is to say, an applicant for preliminary discovery under O 15A r 6. Put another way, while it might be convenient for there to be a power of the type identified in O 15 r 8 in the case of orders for preliminary discovery, it is not so obviously necessary in such cases that it can be implied in the same way as, for example, the provisions dealing with the contents of a List of Documents (O 15 r 6). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] QDC 154" id="cs1">More recently, in Imperial Chemical Industries plc v Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1731 , Graham J said at [20], about an application under O 15A r 6:

 "It is not sufficient to point to a mere possibility that an applicant may have a claim when that claim is completely dependent on as yet unknown facts. Imperial Chemical Industries plc v Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1731 --- cited.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 39" id="cs2">87 In other cases in this Court a variety of forms of orders have been made, in some cases after apparently some argument, and in other cases without any apparent argument. In Conrock Ltd v CSR Ltd [1990] FCA 312 ; (1990) 96 ALR 690 at 695, Pincus J exercised the discretion conferred by O 15A r 11 and indicated that he did not consider that the companies against which preliminary discovery was sought " should perform the work of retrieving the material for nothing ". In London Economics (Aust) Pty Ltd v Frontier Economics Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 932 , Finkelstein J made an order that some of the respondents making discovery be paid their costs. So, too, in Australian Broadcasting Corp v Seven Network Ltd [2005] FCA 1851 , Stone J made an Order that a respondent be paid its reasonable costs of complying with orders for discovery. An Order to the same effect made in Imperial Chemical Industries plc v Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1731 was not the subject of appeal: Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC [2008] FCAFC 58.  The sub-paragraph contemplates that the applicant is lacking a piece (or pieces) of information reasonably necessary to decide whether to commence proceedings; (h) it is no answer to an application under the rule to say that the proceeding is in the nature of a 'fishing expedition' ... Indeed Order 15A r 6 'expressly contemplates' what once might have been castigated as 'fishing' ... As Burchett J commented in Paxus Services [Ltd v People Bank Pty Ltd [1990] FCA 500 ; [1990] FCA 500 ; (1990) 99 ALR 728] , the rule is (at 733):

 ... designed to enable an applicant, in a situation where his proof can rise no higher than the level the rule describes, to ascertain whether he has a case against the prospective respondent ...

This summary has since repeatedly been applied (e.g. Village Building Co Ltd v Airservices Australia (No 2) [2008] FCA 1285 at [14] ; Imperial Chemical Industries plc v Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1731 at [18] ) and has been endorsed by a Full Court of this Court: Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd v Imperial Chemical Industries PLC [2008] FCAFC 58 at [43] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] WASC 51" id="cs3">4 Further, I should note that I am not involved, in what are interlocutory proceedings, in making 'any findings of fact other than those that are proper in an interlocutory context': Imperial Chemical Industries plc v Echo Tasmania Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1731 [13] (Graham J); see also [8].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 60" id="cs4">124 Turning to the applicant's Amended Notice of Motion filed 11 April 2007 it seems clear to me that an order for preliminary discovery under Order 15A rule 6 at this stage would be quite inappropriate especially in the absence of a detailed affidavit from the applicant deposing to matters which would satisfy the prerequisites for such an order. Apart from other considerations, it is difficult to see how the applicant could argue that he does not have sufficient information to enable a decision to be made whether to commence a proceeding in the Court to obtain relief from the respondent in circumstances where he has already commenced such a proceeding (see generally Imperial Chemical Industries plc v Echo Tasmania Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1731 at [14] - [20]).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 6 Effect of this Part</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 119A Jurisdiction of incorporation and jurisdiction of registration</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 168 Registers to be maintained</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 176 Evidentiary value of registers</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 761A Definitions</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1070A Nature of shares and certain other interests in a company or registered scheme</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1071A Application of the Subdivision to certain securities</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1071B Instrument of transfer</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1073A Application of the Division to certain securities</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1073D Regulations may govern transfer of certain securities</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1073F Operation of this Division and regulations made for its purposes</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1274B Use, in court proceedings, of information from ASIC's national database</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1305 Admissibility of books in evidence</title>
<title id="l15">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l16">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l17">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 1.0.02 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l18">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.01 Definitions</title>
<title id="l19">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.10 Application of Division 3</title>
<title id="l20">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 - REG 7.11.22 Details to be included in instrument of transfer</title>
<title id="l21">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l22">ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AND POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">applicant is a citizen of india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">fear of persecution for reasons of religion and political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">where applicant did not attend the refugee review tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1314">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">interpretation of s 424aa of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">whether failure on the part of the refugee review tribunal to comply with s 424aa once it chooses to provide oral particulars of information at a review hearing constitutes jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal has a discretion whether or not to invoke the provisions of s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">a decision not to invoke s 424aa or non-compliance with the requirements of that section once invoked does not amount to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">obiter dicta to the contrary by driver fm in szltc v minister for immigration and citizenship [2008] fmca 384 not followed and disapproved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">whether country information is information within the meaning of s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">country information not information within s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">in the instant case the tribunal complied with s 424aa in any event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal was not obliged to consider the " what if i'm wrong test " (as to which see minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v rajalingam [1999] fca 719 ; (1999) 93 fcr 220)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">for this reason, error in the application of that test would not matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">the tribunal's conclusions in respect of relocation were an independent and additional basis for its decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 46">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1731">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1731">application for a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1731">whether wife's evidence to tribunal constituted "information" within the meaning of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1731">whether wife's evidence relevant only to credibility of husband's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1731">whether tribunal complied with s 424a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1270">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1270">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1270">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1270">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1270">whether 'information' for the purposes of s 424aa of the migration act 1958 (cth) has the same meaning as 'information' for the purposes of s 424a(1) of such act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">review of refugee tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">findings open to the tribunal on the material before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">weight to be given to evidence a matter for the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">no bias or apprehended bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1044">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">where appellant husband nominated an authorised recipient pursuant to s 441g of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">where address of authorised recipient was the same as the appellant husband's address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">where refugee review tribunal (tribunal) sent documents including s 425a notice of invitation to appear to the appellant husband at that address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">whether the tribunal breached the requirements of s 441g by failing to give the authorised recipient any document it otherwise gave to the applicant for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">where s 422b provides an exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">whether tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">where appellants attended the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">where no unfairness or prejudice suffered by appellants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">whether the court in exercise of its discretion should decline to issue constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 122">appeal allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 739">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 739">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 739">leave to appeal application from judgment of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 739">whether decision attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 739">whether substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 739">whether refugee review tribunal failed to accord procedural fairness in accordance with s 424aa of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 739">whether s 424aa operated at time of review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 384">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 384">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 384">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 384">applicant claiming religious persecution in china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 384">applicant not believed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 384">whether the tribunal breached s.424aa of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether tribunal failed to comply with statutory obligation to give information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where appellants provided reference letter to tribunal from chairman of church attended by appellants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where tribunal contacted chairman, who confirmed church attendance but was unable to provide details on other matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether "information" for the purposes of s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether tribunal failed to comply with statutory obligation to give information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where second appellant was spouse of first appellant and an applicant for review in own right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">where second appellant gave evidence before tribunal which formed part of the reason for affirming the delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 110">whether evidence was information "that the applicant gave for the purposes of review" under s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">invitation to hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">sent only to primary review applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">no invitation addressed to secondary applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">primary applicant invited as guardian of infant secondary applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">form of application for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">secondary applicant appointed primary applicant as authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">invitation correctly addressed to primary applicant only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1036">no jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1317">appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1317">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1317">new grounds of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1317">whether leave should be granted to raise new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1317">whether matter should be remitted to federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">re woolley; ex parte applicants m276/2003 by their next friend gs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">migration act 1958 (cth) ("migration act"), ss 189 and 196</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">whether detention of children authorised by migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">whether children may request release from detention under migration act , s 198</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">whether detention valid if children unable to request release</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">relevance of international jurisprudence and parens patriae jurisdiction.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">immigration detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">whether migration act , ss 189 and 196 validly require detention of children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">whether legislation reasonably capable of being seen as necessary for the purposes of reception, investigation, admission or deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 49">characterisation of detention as punitive or non-punitive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 263">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 92">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 92">review of a decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 92">tribunal relied on the inconsistencies in her accounts to find adversely to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 92">the tribunal's findings were reasonably open to it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 92">court cannot engage in impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 92">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 92">application dismissed.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.422b , 424aa , 424a , 425 , 425a , 441a , 441c migration regulations 1994 (cth), reg.4.35d(b)  szhti v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs [2006] fca 702  attorney-general (nsw) v quin [1990] hca 21 ; (1990) 170 clr 1 ; (1990) 64 aljr 327 ; (1990) 33 ir 263 ; (1990) 93 alr 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 734">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 734">whether the giving of an earlier consistent statement is information within s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 734">information given by applicant during the process that led to the decision to cancel the applicant's student visa.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">whether s.425 requires that the applicant physically appear before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">whether the tribunal complied with s.424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">whether tribunal sufficiently indicated to applicant that his credibility was at issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">whether application invites court to engage in impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">whether tribunal failed to inquiry and investigate claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">whether there was actual bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 946">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">citizen of china claiming fear of persecution on the grounds of imputed practice of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 917">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 877">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 877">applicant declines invitation to attend hearing before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 877">tribunal unable to be satisfied based upon materials before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 877">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 877">no obligation to invite applicant to provide further materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 877">lack of state of satisfaction</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 92" id="cs0">However, no error is revealed where the Tribunal employed the facility available under s.424AA to discharge any obligation under s.424A in circumstances where that obligation is not enlivened in the first place. (See SZGIY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1543 at [30] and SZLSM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 537 at [41] . ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 734" id="cs1">The Court finds support for that interpretation in SZLSM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 537 per Cowdroy J at
[38] ---[40]; and in SZNQR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 152 per Rares J at [34] and MZYER v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Refugee Review Tribunal [2010] FCA 522 per Dodds-Streeton J at [50] --- [51]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1342" id="cs2">The Federal Magistrate correctly found that the Tribunal's obligations under s 424A were not enlivened as the material put to the appellant arose either from her own claims or from independent country information, and those matters were excluded from the operation of sub-s 424A(1) by sub-s 424A(3). The section 424A letter did refer to the potential application of s 91R(3) of the Act. However his Honour referred to SZLSM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 537 at [41] per Cowdroy J and noted that no consequences flowed from the fact that the Tribunal referred in its s 424A letter to certain matters, when it was not, in fact, obliged to do so. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 946" id="cs3">I agree with the Minister that, in these circumstances, there was no need for the Tribunal to invoke s.424AA. But there was no error in the Tribunal doing so ( SZLSM v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCA 537 at [41] per Cowdroy J). Section 424
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 917" id="cs4">The section 424A letter did refer to the potential application of subsection 91R(3) in respect of the applicant's conduct in Australia, which was to the effect that the applicant did not practice Falun Gong in Australia. It is clear that no consequences flow from the fact that the Tribunal referred in its section 424A letter to these matters, when it was not, in fact, obliged to do so (see SZLSM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [23] at [41] per Cowdroy J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 877" id="cs5">Nor does it extend to " doubts, inconsistencies or the absence of evidence ". Decisions of this Court have obviously adopted and applied these conclusions: e.g. SZLPF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1692 at [8] ; Tran v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1826 at [26] , [2008] FCA 1826 ; 105 ALD 555 at 563; SZLKY v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1755 at [30] ; SZLSM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 537 at [31] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 25 Copies of documents</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 78 Children born in Australia</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 189 Detention of unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l14">MIGRATION AMENDMENT (REVIEW PROVISIONS) ACT 2007 (NO. 100, 2007) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">commissioner of taxation v citylink melbourne limited  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">respondent entered into contracts with the state of victoria to design, construct, operate and maintain a major system of roads</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">the state conceded to the respondent rights to do all that was necessary to complete those tasks, with a view to transferring the infrastructure and all associated rights back to the state at the expiry of the concession period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">respondent paid concession fees as consideration for those rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees which accrued semi-annually were outgoings incurred in, and referable to, the relevant years of income, where the fees were "owing" but "not due for payment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether payment was contingent or theoretical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were on revenue or capital account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were an outgoing in gaining or producing the taxpayer's assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether the concession fees conferred a benefit on the taxpayer of an enduring nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether acquisition of the benefit essential to the taxpayer's business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were the purchase price paid for the road system as a capital asset</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were akin to a share of profits with the state or a dividend payable to a joint venturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether payment of concession fees analogous to the payment of rent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">contract for coating gas pipes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">part of contract price attributed to cost of constructing plant to enable coating to be carried out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 25(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">avoidance of preferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">"unable to pay his debts as they become due from his own money"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">what constitutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">bankruptcy act 1924-1960 (cth), s. 95.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">japanese parent company lent money to subsidiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">subsidiary used loans to carry on business in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">whether loans were "debts" within the meaning of s 245-15</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">whether debt "commercial" pursuant to s 245-25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">whether debt "forgiven" under s 245-35</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">s 245-55(4)(a)(ii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">meaning of "cgt asset"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">meaning of "having the necessary connection with australia"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">income tax assessment act 1997 (cth) s 136</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">meaning of "used at any time in carrying on a business"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">meaning of "through a permanent establishment in australia"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 148">whether parent company had necessary connection with australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 218">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 218">orders giving effect to earlier reasons</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 148" id="cs0">1 These taxation appeals and cross-appeals are from a judgment of a single judge of the Court in which his Honour allowed the respondent's appeals against the appellant's objection decisions: Tasman Group Services Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 23. The objection decisions related to the application of the "Forgiveness of commercial debts" provisions contained in Div 245 of Sch 2C of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) (1936 Act). The "map" of Div 245 as set out in s 245-3 indicates that Div 245 is concerned to require the "total net forgiven amount" of all commercial debts forgiven in the same year of income to be applied to reduce certain revenue and capital losses, deductible amounts and the cost bases of certain assets attributable to the taxpayer whose debt has been forgiven. Div 245 provides a method for the valuation of the "total net forgiven amount" of the commercial debts to which it applies. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 218" id="cs1">

1 The parties agree that the following orders should be made to give effect to the reasons contained in Tasman Group Services Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation of the Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 23:

1.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l1">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 6 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>