Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">szfde v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed a decision refusing the appellants' application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">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="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether there was fraud "by" or "on" the tribunal.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">inquisitorial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">distinction between tribunal process and inter partes litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">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="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether this fraud led to the jurisdiction of the tribunal remaining constructively unexercised.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">availability of constitutional writs in cases of fraud.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">nature of re-hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">credibility findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">vague, confusing and contradictory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">inconsistent evidence given by appellant's spouse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 176">failure to identify error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">decision of minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">protection visa sought on basis that appellant was a practitioner of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate made adverse findings on credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate failed to put information to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether failure to have regard to information supplied by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether minister's delegate failed to consider future risk of harm to appellant in circumstances where appellant's claim to be an active proponent of falun gong in australia had been accepted. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether expedient in the interests of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">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="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">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="cp5.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 32 Special category visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">new south wales v lepore  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">liability of school authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">alleged sexual assault on pupil by teacher</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">whether school authority in breach of non-delegable duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">concept of non-delegable duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">whether school authority vicariously liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">test for imposition of vicarious liability.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">trial of issues of liability and damage severed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">failure to make necessary findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 4">retrial.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">false statement by employer to employee as to condition of work site in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">resultant injuries to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">whether conduct "in" trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 60">master and servant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 60">assault by servant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 60">barmaid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 60">scope of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 60">liability of master.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] VCAT 973">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] VCAT 973">"services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] VCAT 973">"in trade or commerce "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] VCAT 973">legal practitioners liability commitee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] VCAT 973">fair trading act 1999 s3 , s 107 , s 159</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] VCAT 973">victorian civil and administrative tribunal act 1998 s71.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] VCAT 973">legal practice act 2004 s6.6.3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 56">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 56">whether the usual order as to costs should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 56">whether costs should be awarded on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 56">where basis for an order was founded on the conduct of the applicant's solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 56">where claim against third party solicitor settled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 56">held that having regard to the nature of the proceedings it would be unfair for the applicant to pay costs on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 56">usual order as to costs made</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] VCAT 973" id="cs0">Miller also discusses [3] the Federal Court of Australia case of Barrick v Qantas Flight Catering Ltd [2007] FCA 835 , where statements made on behalf of a respondent (Qantas Flight Catering Ltd) in a proceeding in the Industrial Relations Commission with regard to the applicant in that matter (a former employee) were found not to be made in trade or commerce. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 56" id="cs1">The principal proceedings were, in many respects, bizarre. On 31 May 2007, I gave judgment in this matter dismissing the application: Barrick v Qantas Flight Catering Limited [2007] FCA 835. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT </title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT - SECT 5 Application of Act</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT - SECT 9 Competency and compellability to give evidence in criminal proceedings</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">search warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">judicial review of issue of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">construction of warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">whether a broad approach should be taken toward the requirement that a warrant contain a sufficient indication of the offence by reference to which it authorises seizure of particular things</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">what matters a warrant should disclose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">whether a search warrant should be 'read fairly, and not perversely' practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1686">court's discretion to refuse declaratory and injunctive relief in respect of the use of material said to fall outside the reach of a valid search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">minister declining to exercise a power on own motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether decision to make determination on decision-maker's own motion is "a decision to which this act applies" within the meaning of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) ["the ad(jr) act"]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether "a decision under an enactment" being the aboriginal and torres strait islander heritage protection act 1984 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether a decision of an administrative character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether a conclusion reached on the way to a substantive and operative decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether minister under a duty to make a decision to which the ad(jr) act applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether mandamus can go under s 39b(1) or s 39b(1a)(c) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether state minister as delegate of commonwealth minister an "officer of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether making a decision as to whether or not to make a determination under s 21d(2) or s 21e(2) of the act constitutes "conduct" within s 6(1) of the ad(jr) act practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 667">whether injunction available to restrain removal by third party of object potentially the subject of a declaration of preservation by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v thiyagarajah  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">judicial review of administrative decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">rejection of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">error must affect decision to affirm the refusal of grant of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">refugee review tribunal made no error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">absence of power in rrt to reconsider its own decision by reason of later changed circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">appeal against decision to affirm rrt's decision to refuse protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">power of federal court to review decisions limited by migration act 1958 (cth), s 476</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">power of applicant to seek second application for protection visa limited by ss 48a and 48b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 9">whether federal court has power under s 481 to refer matter to rrt for further consideration to take account of changed circumstances.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">australian securities commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">private examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">transcripts released to royal commission for internal use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">subsequent decision to release for use in royal commission's public hearings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">whether examinee entitled to opportunity to object</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">power to direct party to do any act necessary to do justice between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">extent of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 16(1)(d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1993] HCA 56">australian securities commission act 1989 (cth), ss. 19(2)(b) , 22 (1), 24 , 25 (3), 127 (1), (4).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">customs warrant under s.214 and schedule v customs act (cth) 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">ambit of power of seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">whether confined to documents relating to goods the subject of the information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">whether extends to documents relating to all other goods imported or exported within the previous 5 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">ambit of expression "relating to the goods"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">whether power to seize at common law.  search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">customs warrant under s.214 and schedule v customs act (cth) 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 247">whether goods not covered by warrant can be seized on reasonable belief they constitute evidence of offences against the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 92">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 92">search warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 92">validity of warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 92">whether warrants indicated offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 92">specification of offences in terms of failure to comply with statutory provision which, by its nature, does not require any compliance action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 92">particularity of description of things authorised to be seized</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 92">whether issuing justice must certify his or her satisfaction that some other person reasonably suspects commission of offences.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">justices (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">whether justice must entertain suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">facts to found reasonable suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">sworn complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">relevance of statements otherwise than on oath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">the criminal code (q.), s. 679.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 88">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 88">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 88">whether search warrants properly issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 88">whether sufficient information on oath to satisfy justice of matters specified in s.10 of crimes act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1986] FCA 88">whether warrants properly executed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 88">seizure of irrelevant material.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 53">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 53">remitter of actions from high court to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 53">federal court jurisdiction to grant mandamus, prohibition and injunctions against an officer of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 53">validity of search warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 53">validity of execution of search warrants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 53">interlocutory relief.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.11  telecommunications act 1975 , s.43a  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">search warrant issued pursuant to crimes act 1914 s.10 authorising entry of solicitor's office and seizure of certain documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">appeal from primary judge's determination as to the nature and extent of search permissible in execution of warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">consideration of principles applicable in determining extent of lawful search</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">whether legal professional privilege or contractual relationship between solicitor and client relevant.  crimes act 1914 (cth.) s.10.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">authority to search solicitors' office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">solicitors not implicated in alleged offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">nature and extent of permissible search</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">whether legal professional privilege relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">whether contractual relationship between solicitor and client relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">crimes act 1914 (cth), s. 10. a warrant was issued pursuant to s. 10 of the crimes act 1914 . the warrant purported to authorize the respondent to enter the premises of the appellant solicitors and to seize any document which might afford evidence as to the commission of offences against s. 67 of the companies ordinance 1962 (a.c.t.). the appellants were not implicated in the offences alleged in the warrant. the respondent attended at the premises of the solicitors for the purpose of executing the warrant. he wanted "if necessary to go to any cupboard, safe or other place on the premises to obtain documents". the appellants refused to hand over some documents on the ground of legal professional privilege and issued a writ claiming a declaration to restrain the respondent "from pursuing . . . a threatened trespass against goods . . . in purported execution of a search warrant". the validity of the search warrant was not attacked and the only issue raised was the extent and nature of the search permitted under the warrant.  held: per curiam, dismissing the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 31">(1) neither legal professional privilege nor the contractual relationship existing between solicitor and client is relevant in relation to the nature and extent of the permissible search because where a statute provides for access to documents to be available to a person the fact that those documents are held by a solicitor and were entrusted to him by a client does not provide a ground for the solicitor to refuse access to the documents.  parry-jones v. law society, (1969) 1 ch 1 ; brayley v. wilton, (1976) 2 nswlr 495 , followed.  smorgon v. australia and new zealand banking group ltd. [1976] hca 53 ; (1976), 134 clr 475 , considered.  commissioner of inland revenue v. west-walker, (1954) nzlr 191 , not followed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">illegally obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">statutory offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">driving under influence of alcohol</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">compulsory breath and blood tests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">grounds for requiring submission to test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">grounds not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">whether sample obtained illegally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">whether evidence admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">error in obtaining evidence not wilful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">discretion to exclude</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">road traffic act, 1974 (w.a.), ss. 63</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1978] HCA 22">68 , 70 , 71 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 392">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 392">interlocutory injunction pending appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 392">balance of convenience.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWCA 392" id="cs0">8 Mr Rushton relied on the cases of Coward v Allen [1984] FCA 53 ; (1984) 52 ALR 320 and Zang v Commissioner, Australian Federal Police [2009] FCA 1170 ; (2009) 260 ALR 580. The former case concerned search warrants, and as I understand it, the issue raised in the interlocutory proceedings dealt with in that case was whether the defendant could examine items already seized under a warrant, the exercise of which was under challenge. As I understand it, there was no threat of a further trespass in reliance of challenged search warrant. In that case it was held that the balance of convenience did not favour restraining the police from examining the items that had already been seized. In Zang there was reference made to Coward v Allen . As I understand it, the question was a rather similar one, and in that case, injunctive relief was granted. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 11 Manner of making applications</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 16 Powers of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of applications for order of review</title>
<title id="l3">AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE ACT 1979 </title>
<title id="l4">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l5">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l6">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3C Interpretation</title>
<title id="l7">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3E When search warrants can be issued</title>
<title id="l8">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3F The things that are authorised by a search warrant</title>
<title id="l9">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3H Details of warrant to be given to occupier etc.</title>
<title id="l10">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3K Use of equipment to examine or process things</title>
<title id="l11">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3L Use of electronic equipment at premises</title>
<title id="l12">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 3P Occupier entitled to be present during search</title>
<title id="l13">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l14">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l15">PRIVACY ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l16">PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l18">CRIMES (SEARCH WARRANTS AND POWERS OF ARREST) AMENDMENT ACT 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application to strike out statement of claim and cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">proper approach to meaning of "reasonable prospect of success" in s 31a of the federal court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">requirement of actual knowledge of falsity of representation for accessory liability under s 75b of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1416">application allowed in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">griffith university v tang  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">exclusion of respondent from phd candidature programme conducted by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">where appellant is a body created by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">power of appellant to function as a university and to confer higher education awards derived from statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision to which the judicial review act 1991 (q) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision made under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">relevance of nature of relationship subsisting between parties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] FCA 441">1. on the page the reference to the higher education funding amendment act 1999 (cth) should read " s 3 and sch 1" and not "s 17".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">preliminary question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">whether the provisions of the pure food act 1908 (n.s.w.) answer the description of a prescribed consumer safety standard within the meaning of para. 62(1)(a) of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">whether the applicants answer the description of "a person who suffers loss or damage by conduct of another person that was done in contravention of" s. 82 of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">costs.  trade practices act 1974 : ss. 62 , 74b, 74d, 74g and 82 .  pure food act 1908 (n.s.w.): ss. 10, 13(1).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">product safety and information standards</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">applicability of standard prescribed under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">breach of pure food act 1908 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">contravention of trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 62(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">pure food act 1908 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 62(1).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">actions for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">conditions and warranties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">statutory right to recover for loss by conduct contravening act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">breaches not conduct in contravention of pt v, trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1985] FCA 77">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 74b, 74d, 74g and 82 . held: (1) the pure food act, ss 10, 13(1) cannot prescribe consumer product safety standards for the purposes of the trade practices act , s 62(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">conduct contravening part iv or part v of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">implied conditions in contract of supply of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">supply of motor vehicle to consumer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">vehicle not of merchantable quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">damages sought from supplier and manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">trade practices act 1974 (cth.) ss. 4 , 71 , 74a, 74d, 82 , 86 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">rules of court o.10 r.4; o.20 r.2.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">breach of implied condition in contract for supply of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">whether right to damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 , 71 , 74a, 74d, 82 , 86 .  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">conduct contravening pt iv or pt v of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">implied conditions in contract of supply of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">supply of motor vehicle to consumer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">vehicle not of merchantable quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">damages sought from supplier and manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 , 71 , 74a, 74d, 82 , 86 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[1980] FCA 164">federal court rules , o. 10, r. 4; o. 20, r. 2. held: (1) a breach of a condition which was implied by the trade practices act 1974 s. 71 does not involve conduct in contravention of the provisions of pt v of the act, because: (i) the breach was not conduct in supplying goods, but in the want of correspondence between the state of the goods supplied and the quality referred to in s.71 ; and (ii) s. 71 imposes an obligation upon one of the contracting parties as though the parties had embodied the obligation in the contract.  for the purposes of the act s.82 , a breach of the obligation imposed by s.71 was not a breach of an obligation imposed by the act but was a breach of an obligation imposed by the contract itself. thus proceedings for damages resulting from a breach of a s.71 condition, were not proceedings falling within s.82 and did not constitute a matter in which s.86 conferred jurisdiction on the federal court.  (2) section 74d of the act implied only a condition where the manufacturer supplied the goods to another person who acquired the goods for re-supply, it did not relate to an agreement between the manufacturer and consumer. further, the federal court does not have jurisdiction to grant relief in a claim arising solely pursuant to s.74d.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">strike out of pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">claim by former student at tafe against teachers and supervisors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">claim based on breach of tafe policies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">tort of privacy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 1335">misfeasance in public office.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1288">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1288">motion for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1288">statement of claim discloses no federal element</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1042">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1042">no reason why costs should not follow the event</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 1335" id="cs0">26 Secondly, even if a contractual basis was established that would not mean a cause of action was necessarily available to a person in the position of Mr Chan. Disputes between students and establishments of learning are ordinarily unsuitable for adjudication in the courts and ought to be resolved by internal procedures: Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Cumberside [2000] 1 WLR 1988 at [12] and [30] - [31], seemingly approved in Griffith University v Tang [2005] HCA 7 ; (2005) 221 CLR 99 at [58] and [165]; and see also Walsh v University of Technology, Sydney [2007] FCA 880 at [71] - [80].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1288" id="cs1">5 I have also had regard to the detailed judgment delivered in the proceedings previously brought by Mr Walsh where Buchanan J examined a statement of claim in relation to similar facts, albeit based on different causes of action, and ordered that it be struck out and the proceedings dismissed (see Walsh v University of Technology, Sydney [2007] FCA 880).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1308" id="cs2">10 The way his Honour approached the task was to examine Mr Walsh's very lengthy statement of claim and the complaints made in it. In that examination his Honour identified that, in substance, what Mr Walsh complained of was a failure of the university properly to assess his work as having satisfied its requirements for a pass in each of the three assignments, the subject and the ultimate degree. His Honour said that Mr Walsh's claim raised questions of academic assessment and judgment ([2007] FCA 880 at [77]).  3 Mr Walsh has sought an extension of time in which to file an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Buchanan J in Walsh v University of Technology Sydney [2007] FCA 880. His Honour dismissed the proceedings pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) after having struck out Mr Walsh's statement of claim. 12 At the heart of this dispute there lay, in my opinion, as identified by his Honour, a deeper question. His Honour reviewed the principles which the courts have developed in cases where students seek to contest the way in which academic institutions assess their academic merit. Buchanan J said that he expressed directly to Mr Walsh during the oral submissions at the hearing his reservations about the power of the Court to grant any remedy of the kind Mr Walsh sought. He noted that Mr Walsh was not able to draw to his Honour's attention any statutory provision, authority or legal principle which might provide a foundation or starting point for the proposition that the court could direct a university as to its course content or requirements or require it to award him passing grades in either individual assignments or a whole subject. Mr Walsh acknowledged that he had been unable to find any case of this kind and agreed that he was asking the court to strike out to new legal territory ([2007] FCA 880 at [71]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1042" id="cs3">On 15 June 2007 I ordered that Mr Walsh's statement of claim and application be, respectively, struck out and dismissed ( Walsh v University of Technology, Sydney [2007] FCA 880).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT 1991 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 70">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 70">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 70">spouse visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 70">application of ministerial direction no. 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 70">no failure by tribunal to weigh competing primary considerations particularly the interests of the children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 70">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">visaex</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">on-shore visa cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">visa cancelled on the grounds of the applicant's substantial criminal record including six years sentence for possessing a controlled substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">discretion that the tribunal may exercise where the applicant fails the character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">necessity to balance the protection and expectations of the australian community against any hardship to the applicant in being returned to his country of citizenship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">applicant concedes he fails the character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">found that the applicant has not acknowledged his offences or shown any remorse for them and lacks any insight into his criminal behaviour, he presents a significant risk of re-offending and the tribunal has no confidence that he would resist the temptation to again make "easy money" from criminal activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">found that affirming the decision would not be in the best interests of the applicant's daughter but the other considerations outweigh her interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] AATA 49">held the decision of the respondent is affirmed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 200 Deportation of certain non-citizens</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 499 Minister may give directions</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 500 Review of decision</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">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="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">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="cp0.8">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="cp0.9">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="cp0.10">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="cp0.11">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="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v nystrom  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">cancellation of visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where minister purported to cancel a "transitional (permanent) visa" on the basis of the respondent failing the character test in s 501(6) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had a substantial criminal record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had lived in australia since he was 27 days old</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent held an "absorbed person visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the respondent also held a "transitional (permanent) visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether as a matter of construction the act allowed the respondent to hold both an "absorbed person visa" and a "transitional (permanent) visa".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">decision of minister under s 501(2) or s 503 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether there was a misdescription of a visa which invalidated the minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether a failure to take into account relevant considerations invalidated a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's cancellation of a "transitional (permanent) visa" and disregard of the "absorbed person visa" amounted to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 501f(3) would operate to cancel both visas.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">expressum facit cessare tacitum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 201 of the act excludes certain persons from the scope of the minister's power to deport pursuant to s 200 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where the respondent was a person covered by s 201 and also not an object of the power to deport pursuant to s 200</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 201 of the act confers a protection against deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the subject matter of ss 200 , 201 and 501 of the act is the same, dealing with the removal of persons who have been convicted of offences from australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's lack of power to deport the respondent under s 200 limits the minister's power to cancel a visa under s 501</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 501 repugnant to ss 200 and 201 so as to necessitate s 501 being read subject to ss 200 and 201 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">minister's direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">consideration of best interests of children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">whether mandatory relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">international covenant on rights of child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">minister's direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">importing elements of international covenant on rights of child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">whether genuine, proper and realistic consideration of best interests of children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">whether reasonable inquiry made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">whether adverse material placed before minister without notice to visa holder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">protection obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">whether adverse material placed before minister without notice to the visa holder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 875">whether any practical unfairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte lam  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">application for certiorari and prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">cancellation of applicant's visa for failure to pass character test under s 501(6) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">decision maker informed applicant that it would seek information from third party but then did not do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">whether applicant denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">legitimate expectation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">statutory discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">ministerial policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">role of policy in exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">on merits review by administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">misapplication or misconstruction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">failure to take into account relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">error of law.   immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">criminal deportation policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">merits review by administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">misapplication of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">whether reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">prior warnings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">effect and relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">community benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">how assessed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1052">relationship to personal hardship to deportee and others.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">persons convicted of criminal offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">decisions by minister not to accept recommendations made by the administrative appeals tribunal to revoke deportation orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">no notice given to proposed deportees of proposal not to accept tribunal's recommendations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">effect of criminal deportation policy adopted by the minister confining deportation contrary to tribunal's recommendations to cases exhibiting "exceptional circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">proper approach to determining whether decisions unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">whether decisions of minister bad for unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">effect of transitional policy regarding british subjects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 400">failure to take policy into account.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] HCATrans 219" id="cs0">It is AB v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 910 ; 96 ALD 53.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 2094" id="cs1">20 Second, reliance upon " International Conventions " as the source of a consideration which the Minister is " bound " to take into account is misplaced. In AB v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 910 , 96 ALD 53 , Tracey J reviewed the authorities and observed:

 [20] The applicant acknowledges that the Minister would have been free to make her decision, under s 501(1) of the Act, without reference to the ICCPR, the CAT or any other international treaty which had not been incorporated in Australian domestic law. It is, however, contended that, once the Minister determined that she would take Australia's obligations under the ICCPR and the CAT into account, she was obliged to ascertain and apply the relevant treaty obligations according to their terms. If, in making her decision, the Minister misconstrued a treaty obligation and this had a material bearing on her decision, she could be said to have failed to have regard to a relevant consideration (the obligation correctly construed) or had regard to an irrelevant consideration (the misunderstood obligation).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 351 Minister may substitute more favourable decision</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 499 Minister may give directions</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 500 Review of decision</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">public access to documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic courtroom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic media court book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">federal court rules , o 46 r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">ex parte application on behalf of the trustee of the bankrupt estate of mr coshott</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">to inspect material on the files in the hearing of the creditor's petition and the uncontested entitlement to sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">contents of files relevant to the investigation by the trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">registrar ruling denied access to affidavits under o.46, r.6(3) of the federal court rules (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">affidavits admitted into evidence and subject to cross examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">registrar's ruling set aside.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">non-party applied to inspect court file of defunct proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">application for inspection made for the purposes of litigation where orders for preliminary discovery would not be available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">application for inspection not limited to documents admitted into evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">leave to inspect ordinarily to be granted except where the interests of justice require otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">access to justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">leave to inspect limited to affidavit material admitted into evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">exhibits not the property of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 783">leave to inspect exhibits refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 822" id="cs0">Dr Bell's submission was that, at least with respect to documents which have been admitted into evidence, exceptional circumstances are required for an application under O 46 r 6(3) to be refused. [34] It is true that in ACCC v ABB Finkelstein J expressed the principle in terms which reflect Dr Bell's submission. It is also true that Sackville J has expressed his agreement with the passage of the judgment; Seven Network at [25]; see also Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal Corporation v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [2006] FCA 606 at [14] . But in my opinion, Seven Network and other relevant authorities do not establish a rule that there must be exceptional circumstances for an application to be refused. [35] As Sackville J observed in Seven Network at [24], O 46 r 6 does not confer a right on a non-party to obtain access to documents admitted into evidence.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 123" id="cs1">It is, therefore, appropriate to permit access to the affidavits read on the applicant's and respondents' behalf unless there is good reason not to do so: see, eg Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal Corporation v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [2006] FCA 606. An order under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), or if there was some other legislative provision which directed that certain information be regarded as confidential, would probably displace that starting point: Churche v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (No 3) [2006] FCA 1168. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 783" id="cs2">34 It is true that in ACCC v ABB Finkelstein J expressed the principle in terms which reflect Dr Bell's submission. It is also true that Sackville J has expressed his agreement with the passage of the judgment; Seven Network at [25]; see also Nyangatjatjara Aboriginal Corporation v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [2006] FCA 606 at [14] . But in my opinion, Seven Network and other relevant authorities do not establish a rule that there must be exceptional circumstances for an application to be refused.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 15 Stay of proceedings--Federal Court</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 17 Exercise of jurisdiction in open court and in Chambers</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 50 Prohibition of publication of evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l6">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l7">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 71 Application for judicial management of Aboriginal corporation.</title>
<title id="l8">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 73 Order declaring vacant offices of councillors, </title>
<title id="l9">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 75 Cancellation of certain contracts.</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1251">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1251">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1251">status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1251">marital status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1251">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1251">permanent entry visa (spouse).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">hearne v street  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">supreme court of new south wales (court of appeal)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">civil and criminal contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">character of contempt charged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether civil or criminal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether appeal to court of appeal precluded by findings and orders of primary judge acquitting alleged contemnors.  contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">where implied undertaking by corporate litigant not to use documents prepared by another party otherwise than for purpose of proceedings in which they were prepared</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether appellants as servants and agents of corporate litigant bound by obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">meaning of "implied undertaking"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether knowledge of implied undertaking required or whether knowledge of facts generating an obligation imposed by law sufficient.  contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">supreme court act 1970 (nsw), s 101(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether breach of implied undertaking civil or criminal contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether statement of charge precluded appeal to new south wales court of appeal.  contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">disclosure of documents filed in but not yet received in evidence by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether implied undertaking attached to documents that they would not be disclosed to third parties without leave of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">where documents disclosed to minister, a member of parliament, and staff whether such disclosure protected by law of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether such disclosure protected by public interest defence based upon right of communication with parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether such questions should or could be decided by court on basis of grounds of appeal and in face of disclaimer by alleged contemnors.  contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">implied undertaking not to disclose documents filed in court until received in evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether implied undertaking now a substantive rule of common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether applicable law should be re-expressed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether such questions should or could be decided.  parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">state parliament (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">privileges of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">contempt of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether provision of documents to minister, a member of parliament, within privileges of parliament or public interest defence based thereon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2008] HCA 36">whether such questions could or should be decided in light of record and arguments of parties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">civil penalty proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">request for further and better particulars of defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">whether self-incrimination or penalty privilege apply to pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">whether privilege waived by filing a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">extent of waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">witness statements and affidavits obtained by plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1620">whether protected from inspection by litigation privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">royal commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">commonwealth and state joint commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">questions the answers to which might incriminate witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">whether abrogated by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">documents seized from witness's house and delivered to commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">whether seizure and detention lawful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">commonwealth commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">power to compel witness to answer questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ch. iii</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">royal commissions act 1902 (cth), ss. 6dd , 6a , 6f</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">commissions of inquiry act of 1950 (q.), ss. 9(2) (ii), 14(2), 19(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">crimes act 1914 (cth), s. 10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">criminal code (q.), s. 679</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">health act 1937 (q.), s. 131a.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">whether abroagated by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">royal commissions act 1902 (cth), ss. 6dd , 6a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">commissions of inquiry act of 1950 (q.), ss. 9(2)(ii), 14(2).  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">amending statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">abrogation of common law rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">application to acts of royal commissioner appointed before commencement of amending statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[1983] HCA 10">royal commissions act 1902 (cth), s. 6a(2).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 13 General powers of investigation</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 19 Notice requiring appearance for examination</title>
<title id="l3">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 27 Record to accompany report</title>
<title id="l4">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 63 Non-compliance with requirements made under this Part</title>
<title id="l5">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 68 Self-incrimination</title>
<title id="l6">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 69 Legal professional privilege</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 58">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 58">alleged contravention of section 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 58">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 58">comparative advertising</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 58">representations as to superior performance of a particular battery based on comparative testing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 58">whether there was a basis for such representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the principles guiding the imposition of a pecuniary penalty pursuant to s 76 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) ( tpa ) in circumstances where the respondent company is in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of evidence or inferences drawn from evidence of no reasonable prospect penalty might be paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the principles guiding orders made pursuant to order 35a rule 3(2)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the principles guiding the imposition of a pecuniary penalty generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the utility of earlier determinations of pecuniary penalty in informing determinations of pecuniary penalty in subsequent cases  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the principle guiding the granting of injunctive relief pursuant to s 80 of the tpa concerning conduct directly or indirectly aiding and abetting conduct in contravention of ss 51ac, 52 , 60 and 48 of the tpa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the principles and authorities guiding the making of an injunction order pursuant to s 80 of the tpa in respect of contraventions of the tpa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of past conduct as an indication of future likelihood of contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of principles informing the grant of an injunction, generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the relationship between the possible grant of an injunction in aid of an existing statutory prescription or proscription and the statutory sanctions attending non-compliance. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 146">consideration of the principles guiding orders made pursuant to order 35a rule 3(2)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 248">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 248">application to vary consent orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 248">o 35 r 7(2)(c), o 35 r 7(4) federal court rules 1979</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 248">whether orders interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1054">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1054">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1054">application for extension of time for making application for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1054">previous application for extension dismissed but with "liberty to apply" reserved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1054">effect of reservation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1054">whether cause of action estoppel applies to decision in relation to extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1054">whether statutory powers of tribunal permit consideration of fresh application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has jurisdiction to order costs against a third party under s.43 of federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has jurisdiction to discipline practitioners appearing or acting in matters before it.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has power to make an order for costs against a solicitor after judgment entered and order made for costs to be paid by one of the parties to the litigation.  family law act 1975 sub-s.117(2)  federal court of australia act 1976 ss.4 , 5 , 22 , 23 , 32 , 43 ; sub-s.43(1)  judiciary act 1903 ss.26 , 55b , 55c , 80 ; sub-s.55b(3)  supreme court act 1981 s.51; sub-s.51(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 567">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 567">meaning of "creditor" under s. 40 bankruptcy act ("the act")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 567">whether creditor in position to execute final judgment and obtain its fruits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 567">meaning of final judgment or final order under s. 40(1)(g) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 567">effect of orders allowing liberty to apply.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">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="cp1.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">freedom of information act 1982 (cth), s.42(1).  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 25">communications between government and salaried legal advisers.</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 359C Failure to give information, comments or response in response to written invitation</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 379C When a person other than the Secretary is taken to have received a document from the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>