Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">northern territory of australia v arnhem land aboriginal trust  aboriginals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">land rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">rights to exclude persons from tidal waters under aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976 (cth) ("land rights act")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">grants of "estate in fee simple" extending to low water mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">grants subject to land rights act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">subject of grants "aboriginal land" under land rights act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">under land rights act , s 70(1) , a "person shall not enter or remain on aboriginal land"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">defence under land rights act , s 70(2a) , if person enters or remains on land in accordance with that act, or law of northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">under aboriginal land act (nt) relevant land council may grant permission to enter and remain on aboriginal land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">meaning of "aboriginal land"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">whether, without permission, licensee under fisheries act (nt) ("fisheries act") can fish in "intertidal zone", or in tidal waters within boundaries of grants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">whether fishing in those waters is to "enter or remain on aboriginal land"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">construction of land rights act , s 70(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">whether licensee under fisheries act does not contravene land rights act , s 70(1) , because enters or remains on land "in accordance with ... a law of the northern territory".  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">whether fisheries act , by necessary implication, abrogated any pre-existing common law public right to fish in tidal waters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">whether fisheries act permits licensee to enter any place to fish in accordance with licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">"application" of fisheries act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">public rights of navigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">approach to interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2008] HCA 29">whether legislation extinguishing aboriginal rights requires specificity.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 68">roxborough v rothmans of pall mall australia limited high court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 67">constitutional law (cth) duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 67">exclusive power of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 67">territory law imposing licence fee on sellers of certain videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 67">fee for initial grant or first renewal of licence calculated upon value of videos sold in month for which grant or renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 67">fee for subsequent renewals calculated upon value of videos sold in month two months preceding commencement of licence period validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 67">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 67">business franchise ("x" videos) act 1990 (a.c.t).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">laws imposing taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">sales tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">tax on swimming pools constructed in situ</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">swimming pools constructed in situ deemed to be manufactured goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">tax on swimming pools manufactured ex situ an excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">whether tax on swimming pools manufactured in situ an excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">laws imposing duties of excise to deal with only such duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">the constitution (63 and 64 vict., c. 12), s. 55</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">sales tax act (no. 1) 1930 (cth) s. 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">sales tax assessment act (no. 1) 1930 (cth) ss. 3(1c), (1d), 18(3b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 4">sales tax laws amendment act 1986 (cth), ss. 4(a) , 4 (f), 6 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">exclusive power of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">abalone licence fee imposed under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">amount of fee related to quantity authorized to be taken under licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">whether tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">the constitution (63 and 64 vict c 12), s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">fisheries act 1959 (tas.), s. 3a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">sea fisheries regulations 1962 (tas.), reg. 17a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">law imposing taxation to deal with no other matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">provisions dealing with other matters to be of no effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">amending act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">amended act dealing with matters other than taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">fee imposed on air passengers to australia for immigration clearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">fee imposed on carriers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">right to recover from passengers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">whether tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12),s. 55</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">migration amendment act 1987 (cth),s. 7</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1988] HCA 61">migration act 1958 (cth),s. 34a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 23">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 23">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 23">exclusive power of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 23">licence fee of $10 million imposed on operation of pipelines carrying crude oil and liquefied petroleum gas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 23">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 23">pipelines act 1967 (vict.), ss. 8, 9, 12, 25, 26, 27, 35</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 23">pipelines (fees) act 1981 (vict.), s. 2.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">exclusive powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">stamp duty imposed on receipt of moneys</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">receipt of moneys as payment for sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">the constitution (63  64 vict., c. 12), s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">stamp act, 1921-1969 (w.a.), ss. 99, 99a, 99b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1970] HCA 5">stamps act 1958 (vict.), (as amended by stamps act 1967 ), ss. 53, 53e, 53f.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">exclusive power of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">stamp duty on hire-purchase agreements imposed under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">rate fixed at two per centum of purchase price of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">duty payable by vendor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 77">stamps act 1958 (vict.) (acts no. 6375, 6450, 6489, 6494, 6739 and 6791), div. 3(14)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1962] HCA 27">nuisance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1962] HCA 27">water and watercourses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1962] HCA 27">drainage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1962] HCA 27">natural and artificial watercourses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1962] HCA 27">distinction between natural watercourse in which riparian rights can exist and the natural flow of surface water</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1962] HCA 27">rights of proprietors of higher and lower lands in respect of surface waters.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">duty of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">state statute prohibiting use of vehicle on roads for carriage of passengers or goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">exemption in favour of vehicles licensed under statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">provision for payment of licensing fee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">which, inter alia, might be fixed at amount per cent of gross revenue derived from licensed service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">whether licensing fee so fixed a duty of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12) s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1958] HCA 49">the state transport facilities acts 1946 to 1955 (q.), s. 35 (2) (ii).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">water, water supply and watercourses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">river</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">riparian owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">rights and liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">earth works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">construction along banks of tributary and flood alveus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">interference with natural flow</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">flood waters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">water act 1912-1946 (n.s.w.) (no. 44 of 1912</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">no. 35 of 1946), s. 4a.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">submission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">made late in address to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">not made at trial of action, nor during appeal to state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1955] HCA 10">not allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">water</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">rights of riparian owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">interference with flow of water by local authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">power of local authority to control supply of water</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">rivers vested in local authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">application to local authority created after commencement of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">subsequent vesting in hydro-electric commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">implied repeal of earlier act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">effect on prior riparian rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">"rights directly granted by any act"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">local government act 1906-1947 (tas.) (6 edw. vii. no. 31</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">11 geo. vi. no. 61), s. 209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">hydro-electric commission act 1929-1944 (tas.) (20 geo v. no. 83</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">7  8 geo. vi. no. 95), s. 49</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">towns act 1934-1947 (tas.) (25 geo. v. no. 47</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">11 geo. vi. no. 56), s.37</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">hydro-electric commission act 1944-1948 (tas.) (8  9 geo. vi. no. 22</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1950] HCA 11">no. 9 of 1948), s. 65.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">exclusive power of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">milk board constituted under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">costs of administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">levy on milk distributors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">levy assessed on quantity of milk distributed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">milk board acts 1933-1939 (no. 4183</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">no. 4676) (vict.).  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">question arising under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">action involving such a question and also a question under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">judiciary act 1903-1948 (no. 6 of 1903</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">cited from="[1949] HCA 67">no. 65 of 1948), s. 30 (a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">duties of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">licence fee for the abstraction of water under stewardship of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">calculable by reference to quantum abstracted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">whether duty of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">whether character of payment for licence an acquisition of property or a fee for a privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">whether price for licence must bear a "discernible relationship" to the value of the water derived constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">duties of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">tax on water, sewage, gas or telecommunication distribution networks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">whether a duty of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 124">whether the tax upon the transportation of goods is formulated so as to be capable of being characterised as a duty of excise on the transported goods</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 124" id="cs0">119 His Honour went on to conclude that the UNFT was a tax imposed on a step in the production or distribution of goods, and accordingly, an excise. The consideration which proved decisive in his Honour's determination that the UNFT was a tax is the circumstance that the UNFT was passed on to customers. In his Honour's view, the UNFT was, therefore a tax and an excise. His Honour concluded: [2009] FCA 943 at [162] - [164]:
 Although, in form, the UNFT is charged to the owner of a network facility the charge is in fact converted into a charge to customers and consumers. In the case of QCC it was identified separately in accounts provided by ACTEW. As the network facility is the means by which water is carried, first for treatment and then, as potable water, distributed to customers, I think it right to regard the UNFT as a tax on a step in the production, sale and distribution of goods. That conclusion, it seems to me, accords with the requirement to pay regard to the practical operation of the UNFT Act, as well as its terms, and with the approach taken by the High Court in Chicory Marketing Board and Hematite of acknowledging the inevitable operation of the charge as an indirect tax on consumers. Accordingly the UNFT is a duty of excise. To the extent that the UNFT Act authorises it, that Act is invalid.  45 His Honour did not consider that it was necessary to resolve the conflict of evidence between Professor Grafton and Dr Beare. The judge did not regard the evidence of either witness as assisting him in the determination of the issues. He explained why at [2009] FCA 943 at [88] :
 I do not see it as the function of the Court to enter this debate at all. The question of whether there is no discernible relationship between the WAC and the value of water abstracted by ACTEW, assuming that to be the test, cannot be resolved by the preference for one set of value judgments over another. What is critical to the examination of such a question is not which approach to the estimation of value is to be preferred but whether it can be said that there is an absence of any relationship between the charge and the value of the commodity or service in question. In the end Dr Beare's opinion could not sustain any proposition that there was an absence of such a relationship. At its highest it involved a debate about the justification for a remainder over the specific values which he conceded.  First, the WAC could be viewed as a fee for service. It was argued that the quantum of the WAC could not be said to have "no discernible relationship" with the value of the service of the provision of potable water. In relation to this first argument, his Honour said at [2009] FCA 943 at [118] - [120]:
 [W]ater is a commodity. Apart from other uses it may be consumed in its potable form. ACTEW is in the business of supplying water. 40 The trial judge found that the purpose of the 30 cents per litre increase in the WAC from July 2006 was to raise additional revenue for the ACT: [2009] FCA 943 at [108] and that the WAC was, and was intended to be, passed on to domestic consumers: [2009] FCA 943 at [108] .  (b) The price value approach. On this view, it is legitimate to value goods, services, rights or privileges exhibiting monopoly qualities by looking at the actual price charged for them, that is, the price including any monopoly rents. This was the view of the learned trial judge who could perceive "no reason why the ACT may not realise the underlying value of a commodity vested in it" ( Queanbeyan City Council v ACTEW Corporation Ltd [2009] FCA 943 ; (2009) 178 FCR 510 at 535 [120] ) so that it could not be open to conclude that the fees "have no discernible relationship with the value of the water" (178 FCR at 535 [120]). Another way of putting that argument is to observe that whilst monopoly pricing may well be unattractive that does not mean it is not a reflection, at some level, of value. (c) The relevance approach. 115 The learned trial judge noted that the UNFT had the positive attributes of a tax and rejected the argument put by the ACT and ACTEW that the UNFT was not a tax because it was, in truth, a charge for the use or occupation of land: [2009] FCA 943 at [133] - [141].  117 The trial judge concluded that the UNFT is a tax. The judge found that the UNFT applies to all network utilities on land in the ACT, including National Land and Territory Land (apart from a network facility in respect of which there is, relevantly, a lease in relation to the use of the Land for a utility network. His Honour said [2009] FCA 943 at [133] - [135]:
 There seems no doubt that the UNFT has the positive attributes identified in Air Caledonie which give a charge the character of a tax. It is compulsory, for public purposes, and enforceable by law. The ACT and ACTEW contended, however, that the UNFT is not a tax because it is properly to be seen as a charge for the use or occupation of land. 44 On the way to his conclusion, the judge rejected as irrelevant evidence which was said to bear upon the characterisation of the WAC insofar as the existence of a discernible relationship between the value of water appropriated by ACTEW and the quantum of the WAC is apt to distinguish a fee for service from a tax. ACTEW sought to rely upon evidence from Professor Grafton and the QCC sought to rely on the evidence of Dr Beare. His Honour summarised aspects of that evidence at [2009] FCA 943 at [86] - [87]:
 Professor Rupert Grafton is Professor of Economics and Research Director at the Crawford School of Economics and Government at the Australian National University. He was asked to express an opinion on whether there was a discernible relationship between the value of water for urban supply in the ACT and the WAC at each of the levels fixed above 10 cents per kilolitre and also whether any relevant matters had emerged post October 2003 which might bear upon that question. Professor Grafton's opinion was that the ACT could, and should, have charged more for the abstraction of water than it actually did at any relevant period in time. 41 His Honour accepted that, in order to meet the demands of its customers, it was necessary, practically and commercially, for ACTEW to take ACT water for distribution to its customers, and that ACTEW's customers had no practical alternative to taking that water: [2009] FCA 943 at [110] , [117]. 43 The second justification for the view that the WAC is not a tax is that it is an impost directed to managing demand for a scarce resource. In relation to this argument, the trial judge said at [2009] FCA 943 at [121] - [124]:
 The second element justifying the 30 cents water fee was the stated broader policy objective of assisting in the management of demand for water. Such an objective appears to fall within the views expressed by Mason CJ, Deane and Gummow JJ in Harper. It is not inconsistent with the views expressed by Brennan J. 118 The trial judge regarded the circumstance that the UNFT applies to networks other than the water network as irrelevant. His Honour reasoned: [2009] FCA 943 at [160] - [162]:
 In the present case I am concerned only with the substantive effect of the charge imposed on water networks. The only water network to which the charge applies is that operated by ACTEW pursuant to licences held by it under the Utilities Act . The UNFT applies to network facilities other than those concerned with water, as operated by ACTEW. There is no evidence before me concerning those other network facilities. My task in the present proceedings is only to decide whether the UNFT imposed on ACTEW is a duty of excise. That task only requires attention to the character of the charge imposed upon ACTEW. A conclusion about that matter is neither dictated by, nor dictates, the character of the charge on any other network facility (see Western Australia v Chamberlain Industries Pty Limited [1970] HCA 5 ; (1970) 121 CLR 1 per Barwick CJ at 15). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1367" id="cs1">The principle judgment in this matter was Queanbeyan City Council v ACTEW Corporation Limited [2009] FCA 943. Following the delivery of that judgment orders were made by consent on 22 September 2009. They included an order that the applicant ("QCC") should pay to the first respondent ("ACTEW") an amount of $3,979,419.02. That amount was paid on 23 September 2009. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INDEPENDENT COMPETITION AND REGULATORY COMMISSION ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l1">INDEPENDENT COMPETITION AND REGULATORY COMMISSION ACT 1997 - SECT 4C Declared fees to be passed on to consumers</title>
<title id="l2">INDEPENDENT COMPETITION AND REGULATORY COMMISSION ACT 1997 - SECT 8 Functions</title>
<title id="l3">INDEPENDENT COMPETITION AND REGULATORY COMMISSION ACT 1997 - SECT 15 Nature of industry references</title>
<title id="l4">LIMITATION ACT 1985 </title>
<title id="l5">LIMITATION ACT 1985 - SECT 21A Tax, licence fee or duty or penalty tax</title>
<title id="l6">LEGISLATION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l7">LEGISLATION ACT 2001 - SECT 56 Determination of fees by disallowable instrument</title>
<title id="l8">LEGISLATION ACT 2001 - SECT 127 Material that is not part of Act or statutory instrument</title>
<title id="l9">LEGISLATION ACT 2001 - SECT 162 References to a Minister or the Minister</title>
<title id="l10">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l11">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1999 - SECT 139 Determination of amounts payable under tax laws</title>
<title id="l12">TERRITORY-OWNED CORPORATIONS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l13">UTILITIES ACT 2000 </title>
<title id="l14">UTILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 21 Requirement for licence</title>
<title id="l15">UTILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 25 General conditions</title>
<title id="l16">UTILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 42 Revocation</title>
<title id="l17">UTILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 45 Determination of fee</title>
<title id="l18">UTILITIES ACT 2000 - SECT 47 Contravention of licence condition</title>
<title id="l19">UTILITIES (NETWORK FACILITIES TAX) ACT 2006 </title>
<title id="l20">UTILITIES (NETWORK FACILITIES TAX) ACT 2006 - SECT 1 Name of Act</title>
<title id="l21">UTILITIES (NETWORK FACILITIES TAX) ACT 2006 - SECT 4 Notes</title>
<title id="l22">UTILITIES (NETWORK FACILITIES TAX) ACT 2006 - SECT 8 Network facility tax</title>
<title id="l23">WATER RESOURCES ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l24">WATER RESOURCES ACT 2007 - SECT 7 Territory rights to water</title>
<title id="l25">AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l26">AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) ACT 1988 - SECT 7 Establishment of body politic</title>
<title id="l27">AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) ACT 1988 - SECT 22 Power of Assembly to make laws</title>
<title id="l28">AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY (SELF-GOVERNMENT) ACT 1988 - SECT 36 Australian Capital Territory Executive</title>
<title id="l29">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l30">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 90 Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties</title>
<title id="l31">CANBERRA WATER SUPPLY (GOOGONG DAM) ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l32">CANBERRA WATER SUPPLY (GOOGONG DAM) ACT 1974 - SECT 11 Rights to use and control of waters</title>
<title id="l33">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l34">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l35">LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l36">LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1993 - SECT 611 Annual charge on rails, pipes etc</title>
<title id="l37">LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1989 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 960">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 960">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 960">financial services business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 960">scheme in which participants subscribe barter units and australian currency in return for debit card providing weekly credits for fuel purchase at service stations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 960">defendant smcd formulated and managed scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 960">scheme not registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 960">no australian financial services licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">(first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) intertax property investments pty ltd acn 112715 750 as trustee for intertax property trust number one, intertax property trust number two, intertax property trust number three, intertax property trust number four, intertax property trust number five, intertax property trust number six, intertax property trust number seven, intertax property trust number eight, intertax property trust number nine, intertax property trust number ten, intertax property trust number twenty, intertax property trust number twenty one, intertax property trust number twenty five(second respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) intertax financial services investments pty ltd acn 112 715 796 as trustee for intertax property fund(third respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) intertax pty ltd acn 090 980 644(fourth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) intertax financial services pty ltd acn 104 285 734(fifth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) lifeland development pty ltd acn 117 228 618 as trustee for the lifeland development trust(sixth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) park developments pty ltd acn 117 227 755 as trustee for the parkview development trust(seventh respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) queen elizabeth drive developments pty ltd acn 118 948 940(eighth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) reserve road developments no 2 pty ltd acn 118 900 913(ninth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) ridley road developments pty ltd acn 118 918 639(tenth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) willis road developments pty ltd acn 118 918 657(eleventh respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) cowie road developments no 2 pty ltd acn 118 900 922(twelfth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) buchanan road developments pty ltd acn 118 918 648(thirteenth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) eggersdorf road developments pty ltd acn 117 195 712 formerly bunya road developments pty ltd(fourteenth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) moggill road developments pty ltd acn 117 500 535(fifteenth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) blackwell street developments pty ltd acn 119 015 691(sixteenth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) reserve road developments pty ltd acn 117 135 092(seventeenth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application) david jeremiah palmer formerly known as david john lane(eighteenth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2006] QSC 276">not a party to the application)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] QSC 132">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] QSC 132">management and adminstration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] QSC 132">directors and other officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] QSC 132">application for declaration of contravention of sections 601eb , 601ed , 727 and 911a of the corporations act 2001 (cth) and sections 727 and 780 of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] QSC 132">application for disqualification orders under s206e</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] QSC 132">where the directors engaged in irresponsible and deliberately misleading and deceptive behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] QSC 132">what period of disqualification should apply.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] VSC 192">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] VSC 192">directors and officers duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] VSC 192">duty of care and diligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] VSC 192">duty to act in good faith and for a proper purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] VSC 192">duty not to make improper use of position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] VSC 192">whether officers were 'involved' in contraventions by others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] VSC 192">corporations act 2001 (cth) ss. 79 , 180 (1), 181 , 182 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 427">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 427">unregistered managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 427">unlicensed financial services business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 427">whether declarations appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 427">whether scope of injunctive relief appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 427">whether winding up of company necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1805">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1805">superannuation benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1805">soliciting roll-over of superannuation benefits to self managed superannuation funds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1805">false or misleading statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1805">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">3. order that</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">(a) the managed investment scheme carried on by the first respondent be wound-up pursuant to s 601ee of the corporations act ; (b) ian david jessup is appointed receiver and manager for the purpose of winding-up the scheme. (c) the receiver's costs shall be paid out of the scheme; (d) the receiver shall have all powers necessary for the purpose of winding-up the scheme including, but not limited to, all the general and specific powers identified in s 420(1) and (2) of the corporations act .  4. order that</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">(a) the first respondent be wound-up pursuant to s 461(1)(k) of the corporations act ; (b) ian david jessup is appointed as liquidator of the first respondent; (c) the costs of the liquidator shall be paid from the assets of the first respondent (if any);  5. order that</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">(a) the fourth respondent be wound-up pursuant to s 461(1)(k) of the corporations act ; (b) ian david jessup is appointed liquidator of the fourth respondent; (c ) the costs of the liquidator shall be paid from the assets of the fourth respondent (if any).  6. order, pursuant to s 1324 of the corporations act , that the respondents be restrained and an injunction is hereby granted restraining each of them, whether by themselves, agents or otherwise howsoever</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">a. from further operating this scheme referred to in paragraph 3 of these orders; b. from doing any act in the furtherance of the scheme, or any act which is or is likely to impede the winding-up of the scheme; c. from receiving or soliciting or otherwise dealing with funds in connection with this scheme; d. from dealing with or causing, procuring or permitting others to deal with any property wheresoever situated held by them, or any of them, or by any other persons or entity on their, his or its behalf or; e. from destroying or otherwise interfering with, or relocating any books, records or documents of the respondents or any of them.  7. order that the respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to these proceedings to be assessed on the standard basis.  coporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">characteristics of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">carrying on investment advice and securities business without license</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">(cth) corporations act 2001 ss 9 , 780, 781, 911a winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">winding up scheme of in public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">winding up of corporation on just and equitable grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] QSC 68">(cth) corporations act 2001 s79.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 114">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 114">plaintiff's application to stay or dismiss defendant's notice of motion to set aside orders for substituted service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 114">whether defendant's application permits assessment of adequacy of plaintiff's evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 114">proper grounds for defendant's application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 114">whether a reasonable basis for abuse of process exists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 49">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 49">issue or offer of interests to the public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 49">pine plantation scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 49">agreements made through salesmen without advertising or initial solicitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 49">whether interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 49">whether issue or offer to the public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 49">companies act 1961 (n.s.w.), ss. 76(1), 81(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">conspiracy to effect a purpose that is unlawful under a law of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">proposed borrowing in contravention of financial agreement 1927</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 57 , 61 , 105a , 128</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">constitution alteration (state debts) 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement 1927, cll. 3, 4, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1928 (cth), s. 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement validation act 1929 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1944 (cth), s. 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">crimes act 1914 (cth), s. 86.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">subpoena duces tecum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim of privilege by crown and individual litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">scope of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">cabinet documents and similar papers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">prior publication by tabling in parliament and otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">disclosure of proceedings of parliament without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">private prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">difficulty of proving charges without production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">form of affidavits claiming privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">balance of competing interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">justices act, 1902 (n.s.w.), s. 26.  declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">jurisdiction in relation to criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.22">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">commital proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.23">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim for declaration by informant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.24">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.25">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">supreme court act, 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 75</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.26">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">high court rules, o. 26, r. 19.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">prospectus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">advertisement deemed to be prospectus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">offering or calling attention to an offer of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">advertisement inviting public to buy from one company options to purchase shares in another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">advertisement inviting application for further documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">whether advertisement alone or with further documents an offer of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1973] HCA 61">companies act, 1961 (n.s.w.), s. 40 (1).*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">goods subject to control of customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">prohibition of supply of goods within airport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">goods sold at duty free shop and delivered to airport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">"supply"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">whether seller carried on business at airport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">airports (business concessions) act 1959 (cth), s. 7.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">local government (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">proclamation declaring residential districts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">prohibition on use of premises for trade or industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">use of dwelling-house for social functions for reward</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">whether "trade" or "industry"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">breach of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">threatened continuance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">remedy of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">availability at suit of municipal council to ensure observance of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1963] HCA 47">local government act, 1919 (n.s.w.), as amended, s. 309 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">statutory interim injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">statutory interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">contravention of requirement for business name under business names act 1962 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">contravention of prohibition of misleading conduct in relation to employment in fair trading act 1987 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">whether discretion to make orders should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">warnings of contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">whether persons induced to rely</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">whether persons complained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2010] WASC 184">criminal proceedings in respect of same or similar matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 414">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">proceeding discontinued by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">dispute as to costs of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">whether applicant's case bound to fail from outset</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">whether applicant surrendered case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">judicial discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">whether there should be no order as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 9">whether need to depart from usual rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">whether a funded class action constitutes a managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">definition of managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">meaning of "interest", "contribution", "money's worth", "pooled", "capable of being paid or supplied", "common enterprise" and "benefit" corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">injunctive relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">standing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">proper construction of s 1324(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">whether interest sufficient  held: appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 147">arrangement constitutes a managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether proceeding involves a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">ch iii of the constitution of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">s 39b(1a) judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">s 21 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 1337b(1).    courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">original jurisdiction of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether a "matter" arising under laws of the (commonwealth) parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">s 39b(1a) of the judiciary act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether a civil "matter" arising under the corporations legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">s 1337b(1) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">s 21 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth).    practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">declarations of contravention of s 727 corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether amounting to advisory opinion of court or resolution of hypothetical dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether bare declaratory relief available to australian securities and investments commission.    abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">where real possibility of other proceedings by investors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether likelihood of re-litigation of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether administration of justice will be brought into disrepute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">potential for inconsistent findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 852">whether oppressive to relevant defendant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">stay of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">application to review barring order made under the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">respondent has briefed the commonwealth dpp with a recommendation to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant with respect to an alleged contravention of the corporations act, being the same conduct upon which barring order was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">whether it was proper for the respondent, and now the tribunal, to proceed to hear matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">whether the matter should be stayed as a matter of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">relevant principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">whether reviewable decision ought be set aside, or whether the tribunal's review of the decision ought be stayed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2009] AATA 489">held that on the facts of the case, and subject to the applicant providing to the tribunal and the respondent an undertaking in terms acceptable to the tribunal as to the manner in which the applicant will provide financial services in the interim, any further hearing of the application to be stayed pending decision by the commonwealth dpp as to whether to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant and, if so instituted, the conclusion of those proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 645">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 645">right of entry under industrial law and under occupational health and safety law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 645">whether state occupational health and safety law conferring a right of entry invalid because of federal occupational health and safety law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 645">whether there was contravention of federal industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 645">exercise of judicial discretion to grant declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 645">trespass.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">deen bros holdings pty ltd (acn 109 428 828) (fifth respondent) file no/s: 62 of 2008 division: trial division proceeding: application originating court: supreme court at brisbane delivered on: 17 june 2009 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 9 april 2009 judge: atkinson j order: upon the usual undertaking as to damages given by warapar resources pty ltd and abdul rahmen deen, until trial in these proceedings or further earlier order: the respondents are restrained from placing clean fill, including soil, on the land situated at 59a colebard street, acacia ridge and described as lot 3 on rp 130715; the costs are reserved.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">jurisdiction and generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">where applicant sought by way of interlocutory orders that the respondents be restrained from undertaking or continuing further construction or development work on the land and from placing soil, construction or demolition waste or any other material on the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">where respondents carrying out unlawful activities on the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">whether there was a serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">whether granting an injunction favoured the balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">citing from="[2009] QSC 162">whether the applicant would suffer irreparable injury if the relief was not granted  environmental protection act 1994 (qld), s 73f  integrated planning act 1997 (qld), ss 3.5.33 , 4.3.1 , 4.3.11 , 4.3.15 penalties and sentences act 1992 (qld ) ss 5 , 183 , 185  abc v lenah game meats pty ltd (2001) 208 clr 199 , cited attorney-general v harris [1961] 1 qb 74 , cited attorney-general (ex rel kerr) v t [1983] 1 qd r 404 , cited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">(fourth respondent) file no/s: bs 2655 of 2007 division: trial division proceeding: trial originating court: supreme court of queensland delivered on: 24 march 2009 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 18, 19, 20, 27 august 2008 judge: martin j order: the applicant is to bring in appropriate minutes of order.  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">procedural requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">order to purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents invited applications for shares and distributed share application forms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where shares were subsequently issued to applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where a no disclosure document was lodged with asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether the offering breached the 20/12 rule ('small scale offering') in s 708 corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether a disclosure document should have been lodged.  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents prepared and distributed a business plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.12">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents prepared and distributed a company newsletter promoting their business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.13">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents created and displayed a web site promoting their business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.14">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents made statements regarding the issue and sale of shares in their business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.15">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents issued shares in their business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.16">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents accused of conducting a 'financial services business' without a licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.17">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where the issuing of shares was not the respondents' primary business activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.18">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents claimed to be merely 'raising capital'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.19">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where issue was of a 'one-off' nature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.20">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">meaning of 'carrying on' and 'business'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.21">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether the respondents breached s 911a of the corporations act .  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.22">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">misleading  deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.23">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.24">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents hoped to develop a machine powered entirely by magnets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.25">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where a prototype was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.26">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents stated an attempt to run machine was 'successful'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.27">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents warned of risks and uncertainties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.28">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents alleged to have represented that their invention/prototype worked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.29">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where no one in particular was alleged to have been misled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.30">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether a hypothetical person of the relevant class would likely have been mislead or deceived by the respondents' representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.31">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">discussion of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.32">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether respondents breached s 1041h of the corporations act.  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.33">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">misleading  deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.34">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.35">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">future matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.36">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents stated they had a 'patent program'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.37">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents stated they expect to obtain patents for their invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.38">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where no patents were obtained or applied for</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.39">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents made qualifying statements as to risks and uncertainties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.40">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether the respondents had a reasonable basis for making the representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.41">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether a hypothetical person of the relevant class would likely have been mislead or deceived by the representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.42">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">discussion of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.43">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether respondents breached s 1041h of the corporations act.  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.44">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">misleading  deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.45">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.46">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">future matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.47">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents made statements regarding future expenditure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.48">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where actual expenditure did not reflect projections</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.49">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents made qualifying statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.50">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">where respondents alleged to have made misleading representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.51">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether the respondents had a reasonable basis for making the representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.52">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.53">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">discussion of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.54">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether a hypothetical person of the relevant class would likely have been mislead or deceived by the respondents' representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.55">citing from="[2009] QSC 58">whether respondents breached s 1041h of the corporations act .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 34">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 34">investigation by asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 34">freezing order on assets of persons suspected of involvement in unregistered managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 34">where asic seeking orders for payment of moneys to persons who invested in scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 34">risk assessment and risk management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 34">various factors considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1900">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1900">high court and federal court procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1900">staying proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1900">application for stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1900">where criminal or civil penalty proceedings against the respondent a contingency but not a real possibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1900">whether civil proceedings should be stayed temporarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1900">temporary stay refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">application to stay civil proceedings where criminal proceedings reasonably possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">whether real injustice if proceedings not stayed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">whether criminal proceedings "on the cards"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">whether substantial prejudice to defendants not to stay proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">whether plaintiff's rights harmed if proceedings stayed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">likelihood of civil proceedings being stayed under s 1317l by criminal proceedings being started</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">application of mcmahon v gould line of authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">civil penalty proceedings stayed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">citing from="[2008] VSC 473">sections 180, 181, 184, 189, 206c, 1317e, 1317l, 1317m, 1317n, 1317p, 1317s and 1331 of the corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.0">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.1">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">meaning of "publish"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.2">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">meaning of "race field". declaratory order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.3">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.4">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">whether declaration sought has utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.5">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">whether declaration should be made in question involving criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.6">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">whether state of new south wales should have been joined as party.legislation cited:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.7">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">interpretation act 1987 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.8">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">s 5 , s 8 , s 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.9">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">racing administration act 1998 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.10">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">s 26a , s 27 , s 29 , s 30 , s 31 , s 32, s 33</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.11">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">racing administration regulation 2005 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.12">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">reg 15(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.13">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">racing legislation amendment act 2006 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.14">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">s.27, s 33, s 33a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.15">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">thoroughbred racing act 1996 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp29.16">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 1013">s 4 , s 5 , s 11 , s 13 , s 14 , s 14a , s 29</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2008] VCAT 1341">legal practice list; practice and procedure; power of tribunal to grant temporary stay; whether appropriate to grant stay or adjournment of hearing of disciplinary proceedings where criminal charges may be laid on related subject matter; factors relevant to exercise of discretion; consideration of privilege against self incrimination;</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] WASC 184" id="cs0">39 That, it seems to me, is a relevant consideration of a discretionary kind for the reasons given in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Australia) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 (Finkelstein J). I would particularly refer in this regard to [20] of his Honour's decision where he deals with the matter in the context of common law injunctions (in other words, other than statutory injunctions of the present kind) and [58] and [59] where he sums the matter up in relation to statutory injunctions under Trade Practices Act s 80. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 414" id="cs1">

 The Second to Fourteenth Respondents submit that leave should be refused because the result would be a bare declaration of criminal conduct and would be contrary to authority: see, for example, Inglis v Moore (1979) 24 ALR 411 at 412.23-38, 421.8-421.40; Bassoak Pty Ltd v Rellgrove Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 252 at [13] ; Heyward v Gaming Commission of Western Australia [1999] WASC 16 at [10] - [14] and [29]; Edenden v Bignell [2007] NSWSC 1122 at [25] and [45]-[48]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487 at [52] - [59] and RP Meagher, JD Heydon and M J Leeming, Meagher Gummow and Lehane's Equity: Doctrines and Remedies (4 th ed, 2002) at [19-110].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 9" id="cs2">From 9 April 2008 ASIC entered into without prejudice negotiations with the defendants, apart from APM, in an attempt to resolve the proceeding without the need for a lengthy trial. Mr Day said that there were a number of reasons for ASIC taking this approach:
(a) the liquidation of APM had resumed so that an officer of the Court, the liquidator, was now in a position to investigate further the affairs of APM and inter-company transfers between the defendants;

(b) ASIC had received an interim report from APM's liquidator on 5 March 2008 which suggested that, although the liquidator's investigations were continuing, no significant additional assets were held outside APM and MK River;

(c) the report as to the affairs of the receiver of MK River dated 19 December 2007 suggested that that company was hopelessly insolvent and ASIC considered that there should be little resistance to the appointment of a liquidator which would complement the work of APM's liquidator in his investigations;

(d) the scheme which ASIC contended, and still contends, was a managed investment scheme, had effectively ceased operation and there was no ongoing risk to the public;

(e) in a judgment delivered on 29 November 2007 in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487 , Finkelstein J had considered declarations of contravention against individuals in similar circumstances as this proceeding although he had suggested limitations not relevant for present purposes;

(f) ASIC considered that there was a low probability of it recovering its costs from the defendants;

(g) AF had been deregistered on 10 September 2007. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 147" id="cs3">303 Nor do I need to consider whether a declaration would have had any utility: see eg Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487 at [14] ; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v FUELbanc Australia Ltd [2007] FCA 960 ; (2007) 162 FCR 174 at [61] .
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 852" id="cs4">Gray J in ASIC v West (2008) 100 SASR 496 at [203] adopted the same approach to the grant of declaratory relief in favour of ASIC. More recently a bare declaration was granted by Finkelstein J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487. The Court declared that the "scheme" in question was an unregistered managed investment scheme in contravention of s 601ED(5) of the Act. His Honour said that the power to do so may be exercised whether or not other relief is sought and rejected the defendant's submission that a mere declaration would have no utility as the scheme had already been wound up following the winding up of the HLP companies, for the reason that:
 ... it is appropriate to make the declaration sought by ASIC. Many people put money into the scheme. They are entitled to know that the scheme was illegal and that is one reason why the HLP group was wound up. The declaration will not enable the investors to recover their money. But at least it will inform them what they had got themselves into.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 489" id="cs5">34. On behalf of the applicant it was submitted that the decision of Goldberg J in Sage "is in error" and referred to two decisions to support that submission. Those decisions were Re AWB Limited: Australian Securities and Investment Commission v Flugge [2008] VSC 473 ; (2008) 252 ALR 566 and Australian Securities and Investment Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487. Particular emphasis was placed on the decision of Robson J of Supreme Court of Victoria in Re AWB where, (at [58]) his Honour said as follows:

 "For the purposes of this case I assume I am bound to follow the McMahon v Gould [105] line of authorities. Nevertheless, I wish to add my voice to those at first instance suggesting that an appellate court may wish to reconsider McMahon v Gould.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 645" id="cs6">However the situation is not as clear as was suggested by the submission of counsel for the respondents. Indeed there is a divergence of approach to the question of whether a declaration should be made in civil proceedings about conduct which is also criminal conduct and in respect of which charges may be brought. The divergence is apparent in a discussion by Finkelstein J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487 at [51] and following. His Honour refers to some of the more recent authorities. Finkelstein J. said at [58]:

 I would sum up the position as I see it as follows.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] QSC 162" id="cs7">[3] This case also falls within one of the exceptions to the general reluctance of the civil courts to intervene to restrain criminal behaviour, that is to enjoin those who continue to flout the law; [4] but, more importantly, the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if the relief be not granted.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] QSC 58" id="cs8">One should not make a declaration which might be falsified by a subsequent acquittal in proceedings between the same parties"

 [235] That approach is consistent with the view expressed by Finkelstein J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd  Ors [134] :

"The English and Australian authorities that warn of the dangers of a civil court becoming involved in criminal conduct continue to apply in an appropriate company case.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] SASC 35" id="cs9">JOHN R RING PTY LTD v THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS [2009] SASC 35 (18 February 2009)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Supreme Court of South Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Supreme Court of South Australia  2009  [2009] SASC 35

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] JOHN R RING PTY LTD v THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS [2009] SASC 35 (18 February 2009) Supreme Court of South Australia [ Index ] [ Search ] [ Download ] [ Help ] JOHN R RING PTY LTD v THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS [2009] SASC 35 (18 February 2009)
Last Updated: 19 February 2009
 SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
 (Civil: Application)

 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated. JOHN R RING PTY LTD v THE COMMISSIONER OF THE OFFICE OF CONSUMER AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS

 [2009] SASC 35

 Judgment of The Honourable Justice Sulan

 18 February 2009

 CONVEYANCING - RELATIONSHIP OF VENDOR AND PURCHASER - STATUTORY PROTECTION OF PURCHASERS

 PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS - DECLARATIONS - APPROPRIATE FORM OF RELIEF - DISCRETION OF COURT

 PROCEDURE - MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS - DECLARATIONS - CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Advertisements caused to be published by the plaintiff in marketing residential land make representation as to a likely price range for the sale of the land which is less than the prescribed minimum advertising price, as those terms are defined by the Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 (SA) ("the Act"), for the purposes of s 24A of the Act - appropriate to make a declaration to that effect, notwithstanding the impact that declaration may have on future criminal proceedings which may be commenced against the plaintiff under the Act. Land and Business (Sale and Conveyancing) Act 1994 (SA) s 20 , s 24A ; Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) s 31 , referred to. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd and Others [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487 , distinguished. Henderson v Pioneer Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) (1980) 43 FLR 276 , discussed. Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 567 ; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Intertax Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] QSC 276 ; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Sweeney [2001] NSWSC 14 ; Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) v Transphere Pty Ltd (1988) 15 NSWLR 596 ; Inglis v Moore (1979) 24 ALR 411 ; Johnco Nominees Pty Ltd v Albury-Wodonga (NSW) Corporation [1977] 1 NSWLR 43 , considered. WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED

"likely price", "likely price range", "prescribed minimum advertising price", "sales agency agreement", "buyer inquiry range"

  In opposing the Commissioner's cross-claim, the plaintiff sought to rely on the decision of Finkelstein J in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd and Others. [11] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 34" id="cs10">

17 The emergence of a criminal prosecution would very likely result in a stay of these proceedings: see, for example, Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1900" id="cs11">27 The judgment of Finkelstein J considered by Robson J was that given by his Honour in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487. As Robson J (at [63]) noted, the following passage [2007] FCA 1868 ; (164 FCR 487 at [58] ) summarises the conclusion reached by Finkelstein J in relation to the making of a declaratory judgment by a civil court with respect to criminal conduct:
 The English and Australian authorities that warn of the dangers of a civil court becoming involved in criminal conduct continue to apply in an appropriate company case. The general rule in a company case is that a civil court will usually be the appropriate court to deal with a contravention of the Corporations Act. 27 The judgment of Finkelstein J considered by Robson J was that given by his Honour in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 ; (2007) 164 FCR 487. As Robson J (at [63]) noted, the following passage [2007] FCA 1868 ; (164 FCR 487 at [58] ) summarises the conclusion reached by Finkelstein J in relation to the making of a declaratory judgment by a civil court with respect to criminal conduct:
 The English and Australian authorities that warn of the dangers of a civil court becoming involved in criminal conduct continue to apply in an appropriate company case. The general rule in a company case is that a civil court will usually be the appropriate court to deal with a contravention of the Corporations Act. But the court should be wary of granting relief, including the grant of a declaration or an injunction, if the case is likely to end up before a criminal court.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 473" id="cs12">20 The defendants also rely on ASIC v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) [15] where the Federal Court of Australia stayed a civil proceeding for an injunction to restrain conduct that also constituted a criminal offence under the Corporations Act 2001 . Mr Flugge and Mr Ingelby also rely on the Charter of Human Rights. [16]  24 Thus the issues arising on each of these applications are:
(1) What are the relevant principles to granting a stay of civil proceedings? (2) Have the stay principles been altered or refined by Reid v Howard? [17]
(3) Have the stay principles been altered or refined by ASIC v HLP Financial Planning? [18]
(4) Applying those principles, should a stay be granted?  98 The features of Part 9.4B indicate that the civil penalty proceedings should not be treated as a separate civil right that a litigant has and the issue before the Court on a stay application is only the timing of the hearing of the civil claim. Rather, in my opinion, the civil penalty proceedings are one part of a punishment and enforcement regime imposed on company officers who fail to observe their obligations under the Corporations Act 2001 . That regime is a mixture of civil, civil penalty and criminal procedure. [171] It is relevant, therefore, in applying the McMahon v Gould [172] guidelines to take account of the interrelationship between civil penalty proceedings and criminal proceedings as set out in Part 9.4B of the Corporations Act 2001 and the effective statutory amendment of those principles.  Only the most serious contraventions now end up before a criminal court. Nonetheless when a criminal proceeding is commenced the criminal court should be given (and in many cases is expressly given) priority over civil litigation. [110]  63 Finkelstein J summarised the position as follows:

 The English and Australian authorities that warn of the dangers of a civil court becoming involved in criminal conduct continue to apply in an appropriate company case. The general rule in a company case is that a civil court will usually be the appropriate court to deal with a contravention of the Corporations Act . But the court should be wary of granting relief, including the grant of a declaration or an injunction, if the case is likely to end up before a criminal court. Ordinarily, a civil court should not intervene in those circumstances unless its failure to do so will result in irreparable injury. That strict rule need not be applied if the case involves undisputed facts and the issue raised gives rise to a question of pure law. Then a declaration can be a very useful remedy. As Barwick CJ said in Commonwealth v Sterling Nicholas Duty Free Pty Ltd [112] that is the kind of case "which contributes enormously to the utility of the jurisdiction. " [113] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 1013" id="cs13">74 The Court is less reluctant to make a declaration involving questions of criminal law where the facts are clear and undisputed, there are no criminal proceedings pending, and there is a pure question of law to be decided: see e.g. Crane v Gething [2000] FCA 45 , at [30]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1868 , at [58].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VCAT 1341" id="cs14">Mr Abbott also relied upon ASIC v HLP Financial Planning (Aust) Pty Ltd [12] for the proposition that a civil court should not interfere with a matter likely to be the subject of criminal charges. From my brief review, I do not consider that case directly relevant here. The civil proceeding in that case was concerned with the making of an actual declaration of criminal conduct and whether the applicant should be charged with criminal offences, and there was some overlap in the jurisdiction. Here, there is not the same inter-relationship. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 19 Notice requiring appearance for examination</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 30 Notice to produce books about affairs of body corporate or registered scheme</title>
<title id="l3">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 19 Businesses of a particular kind</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 543 Investment of surplus funds on general account</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601ED When a managed investment scheme must be registered</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 670B Right to recover for loss or damage resulting from contravention</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 911A Need for an Australian financial services licence</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1317E Declarations of contravention</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1317H Compensation orders--corporation/scheme civil penalty provisions</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1317HA Compensation orders--financial services civil penalty provisions</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1323 Power of Court to prohibit payment or transfer of money, financial products or other property</title>
<title id="l15">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1324 Injunctions</title>
<title id="l16">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1324B Order to disclose information or publish advertisements</title>
<title id="l17">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1325 Other orders</title>
<title id="l18">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1331 Civil proceedings not to be stayed</title>
<title id="l19">CORPORATE LAW ECONOMIC REFORM PROGRAM ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l20">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l21">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 190 Waiver of rules of evidence</title>
<title id="l22">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l23">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Declarations of right</title>
<title id="l24">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 22 Determination of matter completely and finally</title>
<title id="l25">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l26">CORPORATE LAW REFORM ACT 1992 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">corporations act 2001 (cth) pt 5.9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">examination summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">application by eligible applicant for examination of persons about a corporation's examinable affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">application for examination summonses to be supported by affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">affidavit not available for inspection except so far as court orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">court must be satisfied claimants have arguable case that examination summonses issued for an improper purpose before inspection allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 183">whether trial judge erred in finding claimants had not shown arguable case of improper purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">liquidator seeking directions from court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">jurisdiction and power of court to finally determine creditors' competing claims   trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">interest of creditors in mortgage investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">fiduciary obligation of investment companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">whether tracing possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">intermingling of funds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">whether declarations of trust effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1031">priority of investors over unsecured creditors  hearing  melbourne, 6-10 december 1993</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 511 Application to Court to have questions determined or powers exercised</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2146">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2146">refusal to forward second s.417 request to the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2146">whether involved a decision under the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2146">jurisdiction of federal magistrates court to grant relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2146">no arguable case to show jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2146">application dismissed at show-cause hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">refusal to refer s.417 request to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">whether a 'migration decision'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">whether excluded from jurisdiction of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">no arguable case to show competence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1945">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 2146" id="cs0">I am not persuaded that my decision in SZLJM should not be followed and applied in the circumstances of the present case. As in that case, the applicant has been given the fullest opportunity to present arguments to show an arguable case for establishing jurisdiction at a final hearing. I note that since my decision in SZLJM , the judgment of Moore J in SZFDZ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs (2006) 155 FCR 482 , [2006] FCA 1366 and SZFDZ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 974 , which upheld a similar conclusion by Driver FM, was the subject of a special leave application which was refused by the High Court on 11 December 2007 (see SZFDZ v MIMA [2007] HCATrans 759). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1945" id="cs1">In SZFDZ v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 717 , Driver FM addressed a situation similar to the present, where an officer in the Immigration Department declined to forward a s.417 request. His Honour considered that there was no doubt that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application. His Honour's decision was upheld by Moore J in SZFDZ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 974 , and in a subsequent decision Moore J ordered costs against an unqualified helper of the appellant (see SZFDZ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs (2006) 155 FCR 482 , [2006] FCA 1366). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 486E Obligation where there is no reasonable prospect of success</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 486F Cost orders</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>