Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where solicitor retained to advise on mortgage and loan contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where solicitor not retained to provide advice on proposed investment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether solicitor had knowledge of unique risks posed by investment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where investment subsequently failed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether solicitor liable for failure to advise on investmentequity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">fiduciary obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">solicitor-client relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">conflict of interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether conflict between solicitor's duty and interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where solicitor had prior business dealings with other party to investment contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether solicitor dissuaded client from seeking independent legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether solicitor ought to have refused to act for clientequity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">fiduciary obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">solicitor-client relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">conflict of interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">reference for independent legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether reference for independent legal advice adequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether independent legal adviser independenttorts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">scope of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">solicitor-client relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether retainer limited or generaltorts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">essentials of action for negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where solicitor failed to advise on investment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where investment subsequently failed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether solicitor's failure to advise caused loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether client relied on solicitor's advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where investor so highly keen to invest that investment was inevitablecorporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.34">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">requirement for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.35">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where scheme not registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.36">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether investment contracts in unregistered scheme illegal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.37">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">consequences of operating unregistered scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.38">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">exemptions from registration requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.39">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">corporations law, ch 5cevidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.40">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">admissibility and relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.41">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">tendency evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.42">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where trial judge rejected tendency evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.43">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether trial judge erred in rejecting evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.44">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether evidence was "tendency evidence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.45">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether evidence provided evidence of "any relevant or material tendency"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.46">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether evidence had "significant probative value"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.47">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether admission of evidence would result in "undue waste of time"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.48">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">notice of intention to adduce tendency evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.49">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">evidence act 1995 , ss 97 , 99 , 135evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.50">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.51">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.52">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">solicitor expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.53">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where expert witness's report based on erroneous assumptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.54">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">failure of trial judge to accept expert witness's evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.55">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether trial judge erred in failing to accept expert witness's evidenceevidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.56">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.57">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">failure to call witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.58">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether witness one expected to be called by one party rather than the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.59">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">adverse inferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.60">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">jones v dunkel [1959] hca 8 ; (1959) 101 clr 298 appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.61">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.62">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal by way of rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.63">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">interference with judge's findings of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.64">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">credit findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.65">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether findings "glaringly improbable" or "contrary to compelling inferences"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.66">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">fox v percy [2003] hca 22 ; (2003) 214 clr 118 appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.67">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.68">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal by way of rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.69">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">insufficiency of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.70">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether trial judge's reasons insufficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.71">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether appellant denied procedural fairnessappeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.72">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.73">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal by way of rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.74">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">admission of fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.75">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether fresh evidence should be admitted on appealappeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.76">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.77">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">appeal by way of rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.78">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">points and objections not taken below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.79">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where appellant failed to put point below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.80">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether point able to be put on appealprocedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.81">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">courts and judges generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.82">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">delay in delivery of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.83">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether delay in delivery of judgment occasioned a miscarriage of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.84">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where delay between hearing and delivery of judgment less than eight months</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.85">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether error in judgment manifesttrade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.86">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">definitions and general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.87">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.88">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether solicitor engaged in "trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.89">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">fair trading act 1987 , trade practices act 1975 (cth)trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.90">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.91">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.92">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">solicitor-client relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.93">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">representation by silence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.94">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where solicitor not under duty to advise on investment contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.95">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">whether solicitor's silence on investment amounted to representation about investmentguarantee and indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.96">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">contract of guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.97">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">guarantee for investment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.98">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where same solicitor acted for guarantor and borrower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.99">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 215">where solicitor advised both guarantor and borrower in same room</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">commissioner of taxation v citylink melbourne limited  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">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="cp1.3">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="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">respondent paid concession fees as consideration for those rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">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="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether payment was contingent or theoretical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were on revenue or capital account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were an outgoing in gaining or producing the taxpayer's assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether the concession fees conferred a benefit on the taxpayer of an enduring nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether acquisition of the benefit essential to the taxpayer's business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether concession fees were the purchase price paid for the road system as a capital asset</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">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="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 35">whether payment of concession fees analogous to the payment of rent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">whether concession fees payable by applicant to the state for the right to build and operate the city link deductible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">payment of concession fees could be deferred by applicant by issuing a concession note</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">whether concession fees referable to and incurred in years of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">whether concession fees were consideration for monopoly or ant-competitive rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">whether concession fees akin to sharing of profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 272">whether concession fees were in the nature of capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">strike-out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">leave to replead.  defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">unclean hands.  illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">whether statute intended that contracts entered into as part of an unregistered scheme are illegal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">unlawful conduct no bar to bringing proceedings.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">equitable defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">doctrine of unclean hands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 214">party who offends principle may wash hands of the impropriety.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1057">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1057">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1057">trading stock</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1057">derivation of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1057">profits on sale of real estate held as trading stock</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1057">contracts executed and became unconditional in one year and settled in the next</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1057">whether income derived in year contracts became unconditional or in the year of settlement.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 631">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 631">allowable deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 631">liability to pay for trading stock to be delivered and paid for subsequent to year of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 631">meaning of outgoing incurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 631">whether outgoing "properly referrable" or "properly attributable" to year of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 631">whether apportionment appropriate.  income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) s.51, sub-ss.51(1), 51(2), 51(2a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">finance company raising funds for lending by drawing and selling bills of exchange and promissory notes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">sale at discount</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">amounts of discount outgoings incurred in securing working capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">when incurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">apportionment between year of outgoings and year in which instruments paid out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 51(1).  bills of exchange</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">accommodation bills</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">whether drawer then presently liable to pay acceptor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">promissory notes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1993] HCA 29">whether maker then presently liable to pay face value.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">instalments contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">purchaser entitled to possession on completion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">possession taken before completion with vendor's consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">default in payment of instalments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">determination of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">specific performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1988] HCA 51">appreciation in value of land.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">contract of sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">balance of purchase price payable "upon settlement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">purported rescission by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">no settlement or conveyance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">guarantee of performance of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">whether accrued liability to make payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">performance required prior to settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">whether actual date of settlement or date stipulated for settlement.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">allowable deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">deferred interest debentures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">debenture not redeemable until expiration of 5 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">interest not paid or credited prior to maturity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">interest treated by taxpayer as accrued liability during income year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">whether interest outgoing incurred in relevant year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">taxpayer subjected to liability to pay interest under deferred debenture notwithstanding interest not "credited" or "earned" during relevant year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">accrual of interest at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">meaning of "earned"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">relevancy of accounting practice  income tax assessment act 1936 s.51  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">interest on deferred interest debentures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">interest not paid or credited prior to maturity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">whether interest "incurred" in relevant year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1984] FCA 240">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 51(1). the taxpayer, a finance company which raised funds by regular borrowings from the public and other sources, issued "deferred interest debentures" to the public. under the terms of the debentures, no interest would be "paid or credited" prior to maturity or earlier redemption at which time a debenture "will earn and be credited with interest".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">time for completion not stipulated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">condition making contract subject to purchaser's completing sale of other property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">character of condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">implied term that purchaser should complete sale of other property within reasonable time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">vendor's right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 29">whether dependent upon notice requiring purchaser to complete or fulfil condition.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">outgoings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">long service leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">employees indefeasibly entitled to leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">leave not taken in year of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">accounting provisions for "accrued" entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">whether outgoings incurred in year of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 6">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 51 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">time of derivation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">trader in goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">goods sold on terms requiring payment in future accounting years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">derivation of profit and interest components</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1971] HCA 80">income tax assessment act 1936-1967 (cth), ss. 25 (1)*, 28 (1)**.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">losses and outgoings wholly and exclusively incurred in producing assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">holiday pay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">industrial award fixing rate of pay on basis of each completed month of continuous service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">provision made by employer for holiday pay in respect of portion of year of income accruing due to employee during ensuing income year</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">year of income to which attributable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">income tax assessment act 1936-1947 (no. 27 of 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1953] HCA 65">no. 11 of 1947), s. 51 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 1012">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 1012">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 1012">reasonably arguable position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 1012">reasonable care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 1013">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 1013">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 1013">reasonably arguable position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 1013">reasonable care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">bad debt claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">business of lending money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">conduct undertaken in the ordinary course of business of lending money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">taxpayer, internal financier to a group of companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">income tax assessment act 1997 (cth), ss 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">35 (1)(b), (1)(a), 8-1   taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">commissioner's power to made a determination under s 177f without issuing an assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s 169a   taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), part iva   taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">limited recourse debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">debt property in limited recourse debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">income tax assessment act 1997 (cth), div 243   corporations act 2001 (cth) ss 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">21 , 45a , 119 , 124 , 125 , 555 , 1305 , 1306  financial institutions duty act 1982 (vic) income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) ss 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">1 , 99a , 166a , 169a(3), 177f, 177g, pt iva , sch 2c div 245 income tax assessment act 1997 (cth) ss 8-1, 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 276">35 , 995-1, div 40, div 243, div 974, pt 3-90</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 1012" id="cs0">Those documents included his tax returns and the voluntary disclosure that he made; (h) the extent of independent analysis of any entitlements to deductions by the applicants' advisers is unknown. There is no evidence of what enquiries, if any, were made by the applicants' tax agent; and (i) at the time of preparation of the applicants' tax returns there were no authorities specifically dealing with deductions for participation in retirement village arrangements of the kind the applicants entered. The first such decision was that of Allsop J in Malouf v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 497 ; (2008) 250 ALR 253 in relation to a retirement village arrangement in all material respects identical to that the applicants entered. His honour's finding in Malouf must mean that any taxpayer who entered a similar arrangement and who claimed deductions on the basis that Mr Malouf claimed his deductions must have had an argument in relation to their position that was as likely as not to be correct in the sense of that phrase as observed by Hill J in Walstern v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCA 1428 and Cooper J in Prebble v Commissioner of Taxation 2002 ATC 5045.
  The facts to be found are as follows: (a) each of the applicants invested $100,000 in the retirement village scheme promoted by Prime Life Corporation Limited, or one of its subsidiaries, which entailed a proposed development of a retirement village in Springvale in Victoria, to be known as the Windsor Gardens retirement village. The manner in which the applicants invested was through participation in a partnership (the Windsor Gardens Partnership) made up of a number of syndicates or partnerships, one of which included the applicants as members; (b) the facts concerning the retirement village scheme and its features are materially no different from those extant in the case of Malouf v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 497 ; (2008) 250 ALR 253 and [2009] FCAFC 44 ; (2009) 174 FCR 581. The applicant invested in a retirement village development scheme promoted by Prime Life limited which entailed a deposit and commitments to pay further amounts upon a range of conditions being satisfied which, in 1999, 2000 and 2001 were not satisfied; (c) the applicants are a married couple of Korean origin who speak limited English and who are retired; (d) Mr Shin had the dealings with the advisors to both of the applicants and Mrs Shin relied on her husband; (e) Mr Shin displayed minimal understanding of the retirement village investment and of the current proceedings. In 1999 he was looking to make an investment that would provide for his retirement and consulted his tax agent.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 1013" id="cs1">Those documents included his tax returns and the voluntary disclosure that he made; (h) the extent of independent analysis of any entitlements to deductions by the applicants' advisers is unknown. There is no evidence of what enquiries, if any, were made by the applicants' tax agent; and (i) at the time of preparation of the applicants' tax returns there were no authorities specifically dealing with deductions for participation in retirement village arrangements of the kind the applicants entered. The first such decision was that of Allsop J in Malouf v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 497 ; (2008) 250 ALR 253 in relation to a retirement village arrangement in all material respects identical to that the applicants entered. His honour's finding in Malouf must mean that any taxpayer who entered a similar arrangement and who claimed deductions on the basis that Mr Malouf claimed his deductions must have had an argument in relation to their position that was as likely as not to be correct in the sense of that phrase as observed by Hill J in Walstern v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] FCA 1428 and Cooper J in Prebble v Commissioner of Taxation 2002 ATC 5045.
  The facts to be found are as follows: (a) each of the applicants invested $100,000 in the retirement village scheme promoted by Prime Life Corporation Limited, or one of its subsidiaries, which entailed a proposed development of a retirement village in Springvale in Victoria, to be known as the Windsor Gardens retirement village. The manner in which the applicants invested was through participation in a partnership (the Windsor Gardens Partnership) made up of a number of syndicates or partnerships, one of which included the applicants as members; (b) the facts concerning the retirement village scheme and its features are materially no different from those extant in the case of Malouf v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 497 ; (2008) 250 ALR 253 and [2009] FCAFC 44 ; (2009) 174 FCR 581. The applicant invested in a retirement village development scheme promoted by Prime Life limited which entailed a deposit and commitments to pay further amounts upon a range of conditions being satisfied which, in 1999, 2000 and 2001 were not satisfied; (c) the applicants are a married couple of Korean origin who speak limited English and who are retired; (d) Mr Shin had the dealings with the advisors to both of the applicants and Mrs Shin relied on her husband; (e) Mr Shin displayed minimal understanding of the retirement village investment and of the current proceedings. In 1999 he was looking to make an investment that would provide for his retirement and consulted his tax agent.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 276" id="cs2">As it is a question of contract, it has no prescribed form. It depends upon what the parties have agreed or, in the modern world as the following cases illustrate, the creativity of those who put together financing packages and arrangements: see by way of example, Esanda v Burgess [1984] 2 NSWLR 139 ; NZI Capital Corporation Pty Ltd v Child (1991) 23 NSWLR 481 , 489F; Guest v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 193 ; (2007) 65 ATR 815 , 819 at [11]; R v New Queensland Copper Co Ltd [1917] HCA 34 ; (1917) 23 CLR 495 , 496, 501-2 (where the Queensland Government advanced money to a mining company that was to be "repaid out of the profits which shall hereafter be derived by or accrue to the company from the working of the said mines" and was therefore unable to seek to recoup the debt from the assets of the company); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Sidney Williams (Holdings) Ltd [1957] HCA 1 ; (1957) 100 CLR 95 , 115.7; Inland Revenue Commissioners v Herdman [1969] 1 All ER 495 ; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Firth (2002) 120 FCR 450 , 468 and Malouf v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 497 ; (2008) 68 ATR 470 , 477. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 2 Commencement [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 3 Constitutional basis for this Act</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 4 Referring States</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 5 General territorial application of Act</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601EE Unregistered schemes may be wound up</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601MB Voidable contracts where subscription offers and invitations contravene this Act</title>
<title id="l8">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l9">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l10">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZ Person may seek review of, or appeal against, Commissioner's decision</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l12">RETIREMENT VILLAGES ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l13">Retirement Villages Act 1986 - SECT 1 Purpose</title>
<title id="l14">Retirement Villages Act 1986 - SECT 8 Residence right not to be created unless retirement village notice is lodged</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 99">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 99">whether by reason of the terms of s 422b of the migration act 1958 (cth), div 4 of pt 7 of that act provides a comprehensive procedural code in respect of the requirements of procedural fairness that must be accorded to review applicants in the conduct of reviews under that division to the exclusion of the common law natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 99">whether the principles invoked by the high court in applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs [2005] hca 72 ; (2005) 225 clr 88 are encompassed within the common law natural justice hearing rule within the meaning of s 422b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 99">veal distinguished</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 99">the substance of matters which the refugee review tribunal arguably was obliged to disclose to the review applicant was adequately disclosed in the reasons of the delegate whose decision was under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 99">an additional reference in the tribunal's decision to another case which was said by the tribunal not to have been taken into account by the tribunal in its decision was not a reference in terms which required disclosure of facts and matters concerning this other case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 99">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">where appellant worked for migration agent as a nanny</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">where agent told appellant to work rather than go to tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">where appellant did not understand english</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">whether invitation in english to attend hearing was "real and meaningful"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">whether tribunal failed to undertake a reasonably open and regular administrative procedural step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">where appellant subsequently gave false information to the federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">allegation of third party fraud on tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 600">leave sought to adduce further evidence explaining failure to attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">szfde v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed a decision refusing the appellants' application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the appellants did not attend the tribunal hearing as a result of fraudulent advice given by a purported registered migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether there was fraud "by" or "on" the tribunal.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">inquisitorial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">distinction between tribunal process and inter partes litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether fraud practised by an agent upon the applicants for a protection visa subverted the operation of div 4 of pt 7 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether this fraud led to the jurisdiction of the tribunal remaining constructively unexercised.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">availability of constitutional writs in cases of fraud.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 175">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 175">breach of s 91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 175">relief refused in the exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 175">order for referral to pro bono counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 175">interests of the administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">earlier decision of tribunal set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">tribunal constituted by different member on second review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">failure by tribunal to adequately identify to the appellant 'the issues arising in relation to the decision under review' as required by s 425(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">effect of s 91r(3) of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">tribunal required to disregard the appellant's conduct in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">tribunal considered appellant's conduct in course of finding she did not have a well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">the tribunal breached s 91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 69">jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of the minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">citizen of china claiming well founded fear of persecution as member of an underground church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">whether tribunal decision was affected by bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">conduct engaged in by the applicant within australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">whether tribunal failed to determine whether it was satisfied in accordance with migration act 1958 (cth) s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">whether applicant's conduct should have been disregarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">mere technicality.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">interpreter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">where applicant sought an interpreter in the fuqing dialect but only a mandarin interpreter available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2009] FMCA 18">offer of adjournment declined.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">application to raise ground of appeal abandoned below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">jurisdiction or discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">role of appellate court to correct error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">need for timely decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">certificates filed by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">inquiry initiated by tribunal unearthed opposing evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">certificates said to be " fake  forged "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">further inquiry required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1372">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">second review of decision by delegate of minister to refuse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">earlier decision of tribunal set aside by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">tribunal constituted by different member on second review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">whether tribunal required to invite applicant to second hearing  held: (by majority)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">invitation to second hearing required in every case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 138">(by whole court) in any event, invitation to second hearing required in particular circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">effect of s 91r(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">s 91r(3) of the act can only sensibly be applied once preliminary findings of fact have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">as the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") was not satisfied the applicant's conduct in australia satisfied s 91r(3)(b) of the act , s 91r(3) required the tribunal to disregard the applicant's conduct in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">the tribunal breached s 91r(3) of the act and therefore committed a jurisdictional error  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">"disregard any conduct engaged in by the person in australia"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 911">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 911">review of decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 911">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 911">conduct of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 911">hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 911">whether the tribunal accorded applicant natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 911">whether the tribunal had adequately identified to applicant for review "the issues arising in relation to the decision under review" as required by s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">application for constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">applicant's visa cancelled under s 501(2) migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">ministerial direction no 21 made under s 499 migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">decision to cancel visa made by minister personally and not by a delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">minister gave considerable weight to "the best interests of the child"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether minister misconstrued direction no 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether minister took into account irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether the minister was bound by direction no 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether misconstruction of direction no 21 amounted to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 189">whether the applicant was denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">execution of search warrant issued under s 3e of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">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="cp9.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">whether execution of the warrant was rendered unlawful because of non-compliance with s 3h(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">consideration of purpose of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">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="cp9.6">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="cp9.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">proposed grounds concerned an issue not argued below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">no evidence before the court as to why issue not argued below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">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="cp9.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 94">held: leave to amend notice of appeal only if new grounds deleted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 663">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 663">appeal from federal magistrate affirming decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 663">claim not raised in initial application subsequently raised before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 663">where tribunal failed to alert appellant with sufficient specificity to the adverse material on which it relied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 663">where tribunal failed to meet its obligations to appellant under s 424a(1) of migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 663">demonstrated compliance with s 424a(3)(b) relieves the respondent of the requirements set out under s 424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 663">no appellable error made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">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="cp11.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">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="cp11.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">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="cp11.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">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] FCAFC 187">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">copyright infringements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">sound recordings downloaded from files at remote websites accessed via links on an appellant's website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">nature of conduct constituting authorization</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">whether necessary to have power to prevent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">need for nexus between conduct and australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">held: an appellant operator and an appellant host of website authorized infringements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">an appellant director of host also liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">an appellant employee of host merely an employee and not liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">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="cp14.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">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="cp14.8">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="cp14.9">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="cp14.10">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="cp14.11">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="cp15.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">whether tribunal member had made up mind to affirm decision of delegate at time of sending s 424a letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">test for apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">no obligation to maintain neutral state of mind during review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">critical that tribunal member not close mind against further probative material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">held: no reasonable apprehension of bias. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">compliance with s 424a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">whether particulars of information the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review were provided to the respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">whether explanation of why information relevant to review was sufficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 138">held: particulars of relevant information not provided and insufficient explanation of relevance to review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">notice of motion to set aside order dismissing appeal where appellant failed to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">orders made in appellate or related jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">order entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">power to set aside order under section 23 of federal court act 1976 (cth) so as to overcome the court's failure to provide a party with a hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">sufficiency of explanation for failure to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">whether arguable case migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">effect of section 91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">consideration by rrt of applicant's conduct in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">appellant's conduct while in australia did not assist his claim to be a refugee therefore section 91r(3) does not apply migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">"information" does not encompass subjective appraisals, thought processes or determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">"information" does not encompass identified gaps, defects or lack of detail or specificity in evidence federal court act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">s 23 migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 648">s 91r , 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">whether tribunal should have determined whether appellant member of social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">litigious persons in china or beijing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">whether tribunal obliged to put country information to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1132">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">applicant naff of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">non-compliance with statutory duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal concerned by inconsistencies in applicant's evidence at oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal said it would give the applicant a chance to respond in writing to its concerns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether tribunal's failure to do so involved a failure to complete the review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to conduct a review under s 414(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to hear from the applicant under s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether reviewable error where absence of evidence from the applicant about effect of failure.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss 56 , 414 (1), 415 (1), 425 (1), 427 (1)(b), 420 , pt 7 divs 2-7a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">tribunal had regard to information from lonely planet guide in rejecting aspect of appellant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether failure to provide appellant with opportunity to comment upon information constituted breach of s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether information "the reason, or a part of the reason" for affirming decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">point raised on appeal having previously been abandoned at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">whether leave to rely upon proposed ground should be granted words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">"the reason, or a part of the reason"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 158">s 424a(1) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">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="cp25.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">ground of appeal added by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">allegation of technical invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">effect of seeking new trial on different issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">limited public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.),s. 75a(6).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 81">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 81">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 81">whether the tribunal failed to comply with s.424a of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 81">whether " information " within s.424a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 81">whether tribunal complied with the procedures in s.424aa of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 81">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">skilled overseas student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">review of migration review tribunal ("tribunal") decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">skills assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">whether evidence used in assessment was "false or misleading in a material particular"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">giving of invitation to attend tribunal hearing by facsimile transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">whether "transmission" requires receipt or merely dispatch</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">degree of clarity required when notifying information pursuant to s.359a(1) of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">ensuring that the relevance of information identified pursuant to s.359a(1) is, as far as reasonably practicable, understood by the recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.9">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">challenge to tribunal's factual finding on grounds that there was no evidence for it; that it was illogical or not based on logical or probative material; that it was the product of the application of an incorrect test; that evidence had been overlooked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.10">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">duty to make enquiries.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.11">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.12">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">facsimile transmission records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.13">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">presumption of effective dispatch and receipt of electronic communication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.14">citing from="[2011] FMCA 18">presumption that outcome of device or process is demonstrated by documents produced by the device or process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 119">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 119">decision of rrt affirming a decision to refuse protection visa to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 119">whether rrt breached s 424a(1) of migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 119">adverse information relied upon by rrt fell within exceptions to s 424a(1) provided by s 424a(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 119">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1007">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1007">application to review decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1007">whether tribunal failed to comply with s.424a of the migration act by failing to put to the applicant a copy of his business visa application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1282">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">appeal from federal magistrates court of decision of rrt affirming a decision to refuse protection visa to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">whether rrt breached s 424a(1) of migration act by failing to comply with s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">whether rrt failed to comply with s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">whether rrt complied with the obligation to give clear particulars and to ensure that the visa applicant understood the relevance and consequence of the information that rrt had determined would be the reason or part of reason for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">non-compliance with s 424aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 559">appeal allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 775">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 775">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 775">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 775">applicant claiming persecution in bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 775">applicant claiming domestic violence in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 775">whether the tribunal overlooked an element of the applicant's claims, or breached s.91r(3) or s.424(2) of the migration act considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">review of the decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">whether the contents of a letter "would be" the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review pursuant to s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">whether the contents of a letter were "information" pursuant to s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal's letter discharged its obligations under s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">contents of a letter not "information" as distinct from the letter itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal's adverse view of contents of a letter not "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">findings open to tribunal on what was before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal put to applicant issues dispositive of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">tribunal did not misunderstand or misapply relevant law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 473">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 81" id="cs0">After discussing the approach taken to ss.424AA and 424A of the Act by the Full Court of the Federal Court in SZMCD and the approach taken to s.424A by Flick J in SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (No 2) (2009) 109 ALD 242 ; [2009] FCA 486 , Bromberg J found (at [57]) that in the particular circumstances of the case before him the Tribunal had failed to provide clear particulars of the information in question. There was said to be a lack of sufficient specificity. His Honour was of the view that the wording employed by the Tribunal at the hearing lacked the necessary clarity in identifying whether its concern related to the whole of the evidence of the priests put to the applicant or simply to that part of it that directly refuted the applicant's claims. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 18" id="cs1">However, the clarity and detail of information provided pursuant to s.359A(1)(a) may be sufficient to lead to the situation where the Tribunal has complied with s.359A(1)(b), without giving the explanation which that paragraph contemplates. Even if the Tribunal fails to take independent steps under s.359A(1)(b) to ensure that an applicant understands why particularised information is relevant to the review, that relevance may be self-evident from the information itself: Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs v SZGMF at [41]; Wang v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 488 at [29] . As Flick J said in SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship (No.2) [2009] FCA 486 ; (2009) 109 ALD 242 in relation to the RRT's equivalent of s.359A(1): Although s 424A(1) imposes the trinity of requirements set forth in paras (a), (b) and (c), it is not considered that compliance with s 424A(1) is necessarily to be approached by considering each of the three requirements as though it were divorced from the rest. The greater the degree of clarity in the "particulars of any information" provided, the less may be the exposition needed to convey the relevance of that information to the review being undertaken; the greater the uncertainty in the information being provided, the greater may be the need to explain why it may be relevant. Section 424A(1)(b) remains a requirement to be satisfied; but the steps to be undertaken to discharge that requirement may well depend upon the clarity with which the information has been identified and indeed the character of that information. (at 254 [52]) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 119" id="cs2"/>
<sentence from="[2010] RRTA 1175" id="cs3">In respect of s.91R(3) it was submitted that other recent decisions of the Tribunal had dealt with the issue and attention was drawn to these. A recent decision of the Federal Court of Australia, SZNKW v. MIAC (2010) FCA 55 which found that s.91R(3) could have application where an applicant was found not to be homosexual was referred to, however, a distinction with the present case was drawn it being submitted that the applicant's homosexuality should be accepted. The summary of s.91R(3) consideration at paragraph 13 of SZMTJ v. MAIC (No.2) 2009 FCA 486 was referred to. It was submitted that where an applicant was homosexual before arrival in Australia it would be expected that he would engage in homosexual conduct in Australia. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 1007" id="cs4">While in some circumstances the obligation to comply with s.424A(1) may require disclosure of the whole of a document containing information (even if the whole document cannot itself be described as information), having regard to the facts and the circumstances of this case it has not been established that a meaningful opportunity to comment or respond on information within s.424A(1) required the disclosure to the applicant of the whole of the content of the business visa application as part of the context in which the information about the fact and date of the application and the Tribunal's concerns about the accompanying documents were put to him. The information referred to in the s.424A letter and its potential relevance were identified with sufficient clarity (see SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (No 2) (2009) 109 ALD 242 ; [2009] FCA 486). The applicant has not pointed to any particular aspect of the business visa application as relevant surrounding context. The Tribunal did not " attribute " the business visa application to the applicant, but rather found that he was involved in the preparation of his visa application and travel arrangements. The Tribunal rejected his claims about his lack of knowledge of the application in the context of considering his delayed departure from Cameroon after the visa was granted. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1250" id="cs5">Further, the nature and content of the obligations upon the Tribunal under s 424A(1) were recently summarised by Flick J in SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor (No 2) [2009] FCA 486. I respectfully agree with his Honour's observations at [52] that each of the requirements of s 424A are not to be treated as though they were divorced one from the next. The greater degree of clarity in the particulars of any information provided, the less may be the exposition needed to convey the relevance of that information to the review being undertaken; the greater the uncertainty in the information being provided, the greater may be the need to explain why it may be relevant. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1282" id="cs6">Mr Smith contended that the particulars of the information were clearly stated and that consequently there was reduced need for an articulation of the relevance of the information to the review, and the consequences of the information being relied upon in affirming the decision under review: SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No. 2) [2009] FCA 486. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 559" id="cs7">The nature and content of the obligations upon the Tribunal under s 424A(1) were recently summarised by Flick J in SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Anor (No 2) [2009] FCA 486. I respectfully agree with his Honour's observations at [52] that each of the requirements of s 424A are not to be treated as though they were divorced one from the next. The greater degree of clarity in the particulars of any information provided, the less may be the exposition needed to convey the relevance of that information to the review being undertaken; the greater the uncertainty in the information being provided, the greater may be the need to explain why it may be relevant. The same observations are applicable to s 424AA. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 775" id="cs8">In relation to ground 2, the Minister submits that it is apparent from the Tribunal's reasons that the applicant committed visa fraud to achieve a particular migration outcome and that she only revealed that fraud when she wished to obtain a new visa, and that those findings were based on a reasoning that the applicant acted in ways expedient to her immediate wishes, not to strengthen her refugee claims [2] . The Minister further submits that the applicant's claims in relation to domestic conflict in Australia were implicitly accepted by the Tribunal as being not undertaken for the purpose of strengthening her protection visa claims, to the extent that that conflict might be seen as "conduct" [3] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 473" id="cs9">This was cited with approval in SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2009] FCA 486 (" SZMTJ ") per Flick J, where it was also said at [51] to [52]: "Although s 424A(1) imposes the trinity of requirements set forth in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), it is not considered that compliance with s 424A(1) is necessarily to be approached by considering each of the three requirements as though it were divorced from the rest. The greater the degree of clarity in the "particulars of any information" provided, the less may be the exposition needed to convey the relevance of that information to the review being undertaken; the greater the uncertainty in the information being provided, the greater may be the need to explain why it may be relevant. Section 424A(1)(b) remains a requirement to be satisfied; but the steps to be undertaken to discharge that requirement may well depend upon the clarity with which the information has been identified and indeed the character of that information. In the present proceeding, the information set forth by the Tribunal in its 28 July 2008 letter has been identified with such detail that it was readily apparent that the Appellant's response was being sought as to how that information could be compatible with a genuine claim to fear persecution. There is no uncertainty that what was being sought was his comment as to how he could credibly be claiming to fear persecution in the light of the information set forth. " </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 48A Non-citizen refused a protection visa may not make further application for protection visa</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 417 Minister may substitute more favourable decision</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">limitation of actions (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to actions founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">onus of proving fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.  practice and procedure (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to action founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">claim outside six year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">defence that action statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">no reply alleging fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">non-appearance of defendant at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">judgment for defendant on ground that no trust established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">finding of fraud on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">where representation made in television commercial, sales catalogue and in-store promotions for "20%-60% off storewide"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">express exclusion of certain goods in smaller print</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">whether statement misleadingly suggested that every item in store was for sale at least 20% less than the regular price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">whether various banner headings in sales catalogue advertising different percentage savings for specific types of goods depicted in proximity to particular goods not within specific type of goods misleadingly suggested that the depicted goods were for sale at the specified savings in terms of percentage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">whether asterisks in banner headings and footnotes sufficiently drew viewers' and readers' attention to exclusions and limitations of advertised sale   trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">where compliance program with external audit obligations already imposed under s 87b undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">appropriate terms of declaratory orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">whether order for corrective advertising should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">whether corrective advertising serves an appropriate preventative purpose in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 54">whether injunctive orders preventing specific conduct and methods of advertising appropriate in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 383">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 383">indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 383">whether successful party not entitled to costs in respect of those issues on which the party failed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 383">whether circumstances justified awarding indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 383">effect of calderbank letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">consent orders including undertakings about future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">undertaking extending beyond court's power to restrain conduct by injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 45a, 80 , 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 22 , 23 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 681">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 681">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 681">whether apportionment appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 681">part of applicant's claim discontinued at commencement of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 681">applicant fails to succeed in respect of all of remaining claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 681">whether any costs disentitling conduct on the part of the applicant</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 681" id="cs0">The respondents' submission as to costs took as its starting point an observation made by Dowsett J in Australian Competition  Consumer Commission v Danoz Direct Pty Ltd (ACN 003 546 709) [2003] FCA 1580 [2003] FCA 1580 at [6] --- [9] ( Danoz ) that the ACCC, like any other party, has an obligation to seek sensible resolution of disputes. That observation was approved by Mansfield J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Harris Scarfe Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 433 at [10] ( Harris Scarfe ). In so doing (ibid), Mansfield J prefixed that approval as follows:

 The public interest is in the sensible and just compromise of disputes where that is appropriate. That is so whether the parties in dispute are private citizens or governmental instrumentalities.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>