Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions of law invite broad enquiry as to the construction and operation of statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions seek to characterise a question of fact as a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions invite court to examine evidence and other material before the tribunal and conduct a rehearing on aspects of the controversy determined by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether convenient to make for court to make findings of fact under s 44(7).  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">meaning of 'injury' under commonwealth employees' compensation act 1930 (cth) and compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether mere experiencing of event or condition necessary for development of a disease contracted by gradual process constitutes 'injury'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">s 101(2)(a) of commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether inchoate or contingent liabilities in respect of a disease contracted by gradual process transferred to administering authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">interaction of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) and veterans' entitlements act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether compensation payable in relation to service of defence force member where provision made for the payment of pension.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">nature of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">finding that conduct misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">role of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">whether appellate court bound by finding of primary judge trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">franchise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">need to consider whole of relevant conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">whether material provided to franchisee conveyed representations alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">significance of independent legal and accounting advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">significance of acknowledgement that no representations made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">whether reliance on representations established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">significance of acknowledgement of non-reliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">disclaimer  agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">actual authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">terms of agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 131">whether facts fairly disclose that one party is acting for another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">cancellation of age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">reinstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">calculation of arrears</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">whether arrears to be calculated at current rate or rate applicable at times they should have been paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">notices requiring provision of information relating to control of private trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">non-compliance with notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">cancellation of age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">rejection of fresh claim for age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">based on non-compliance with notices requiring information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">appeal to administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">whether any error of law in aat's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">no error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 880">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">social security law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">pensions and entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">calculation of arrears</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">decision affirmed   social security law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">pensions and entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">cancellation of pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">whether applicant given valid notice of request for information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">whether applicant complied with notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">decision affirmed   social security law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">pensions and entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">decision to reject application for pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">whether applicant given valid notice of request for information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">whether applicant complied with notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2004] AATA 1273">decision affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">benefits and entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">cancellation of age pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">validity of notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">whether failure to comply with notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">deemed receipt of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2003] AATA 489">calculation of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l3">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">appellant held absorbed person visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">appellant convicted of attempted murder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">appellant's visa cancelled on character grounds pursuant to migration act 1958 (cth) s 501</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">whether tribunal decision unreasonable due to failure to consider appellant's mental state at time of offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">whether s 501 applicable where visa holder has been in australia for more than 10 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 180">migration act 1958 (cth) s 201</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v nystrom  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">cancellation of visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where minister purported to cancel a "transitional (permanent) visa" on the basis of the respondent failing the character test in s 501(6) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had a substantial criminal record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had lived in australia since he was 27 days old</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent held an "absorbed person visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the respondent also held a "transitional (permanent) visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether as a matter of construction the act allowed the respondent to hold both an "absorbed person visa" and a "transitional (permanent) visa".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">decision of minister under s 501(2) or s 503 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether there was a misdescription of a visa which invalidated the minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether a failure to take into account relevant considerations invalidated a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's cancellation of a "transitional (permanent) visa" and disregard of the "absorbed person visa" amounted to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 501f(3) would operate to cancel both visas.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">expressum facit cessare tacitum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 201 of the act excludes certain persons from the scope of the minister's power to deport pursuant to s 200 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where the respondent was a person covered by s 201 and also not an object of the power to deport pursuant to s 200</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 201 of the act confers a protection against deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the subject matter of ss 200 , 201 and 501 of the act is the same, dealing with the removal of persons who have been convicted of offences from australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's lack of power to deport the respondent under s 200 limits the minister's power to cancel a visa under s 501</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 501 repugnant to ss 200 and 201 so as to necessitate s 501 being read subject to ss 200 and 201 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 37">al-kateb v godwin high court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">constitutional writ relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">cancellation of non-citizen permanent visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">decision made by minister personally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">appellant's failure to pass character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">criminal record. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether general deterrence is an irrelevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether general deterrence is a factor relevant to the exercise of the minister's discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether cancellation of visa where general deterrence is the sole or substantial reason for cancellation of visa is punitive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether appellant's intellectual disability was taken into account.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">notice of objection to the competency of the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether trial judge dealt with matter on a final basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">no leave to appeal necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">application for leave to file amended notice of appeal to include grounds not raised before trial judge.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">retrospective legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">intended to reverse effect of judicial decision that statutory power to cancel a visa could not be exercised in respect of particular class of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision validated decisions by the minister and a delegate of the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision silent about validity of decision made before retrospective legislation enacted by administrative appeals tribunal to affirm decision of delegate to cancel visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">whether tribunal's decision continued to be invalid after retrospective legislation commenced because of its earlier jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">whether validation of delegate's previously invalid decision also validated previously invalid decision of tribunal   statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">principles of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">retrospective legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">principle that legislature is taken not to intend to interfere with fundamental or accrued rights unless express language is used</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">principle of interpretation when construing retrospective legislation that the parliament intended to act fairly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision designed to overcome the effect of a superior court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">deeming provision created a statutory fiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">importance of identifying the legislative purpose of the deeming provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">whether deeming provision is capable of removing jurisdictional error where no express words used   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">decision-maker ignoring relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 528">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 474 , 476a and 477a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">judicial review of a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">jurisdiction of the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">scope and grounds of review   constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">s 39b and s 78b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth)   migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">process by which child is absorbed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">purported cancellation of absorbed person visa on character grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 166">whether child absorbed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 528" id="cs0">In my opinion Direction No 21 does not have that vice. The Minister asserted that it created a rebuttable presumption about the weight to be given to primary considerations that should guide the exercise of decision-makers' discretions in a uniform manner. I agree with Emmett J who said that the terms of Direction No 21 do not contain a requirement that any decision-maker, whether the Minister, a delegate or the tribunal, reach a conclusion that particular conduct of the visa holder is abhorrent: Lesuma v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2007] FCA 2106 ; (2007) 99 ALD 514 at 517 [11] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 166" id="cs1">This ground is based upon the reasoning of Emmett J in Lesuma v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) (2007) 99 ALD 514 ; [2007] FCA 2106 especially at [30] to [36]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 201 Deportation of non-citizens in Australia for less than 10 years who are convicted of crimes</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 499 Minister may give directions</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">whether refugee review tribunal failed to provide applicant with particulars of information that the tribunal considered would be the reason, or part of the reason for affirming decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">requirement not applicable if information "just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">whether information within exception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">tribunal required to invite applicant to appear to give evidence and present argument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">notice of hearing to be given in prescribed manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">notice deemed to have been received if so given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">notice given in prescribed manner but not received by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 134">whether deemed receipt provision applies only to notice and not to invitation.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426 Applicant may request Refugee Review Tribunal to call witnesses</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441G Authorised recipient</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">appeal from decision of a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">discretion to award costs under s 43(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">factors in exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where respondents to claim of unjustified threats brought cross-claim for infringement of patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where new parties joined much later as respondents to cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where cross-claim not actively defended by newly joined cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where defence of inactive cross-respondents denied infringement and validity of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where cross-claimants successful against all cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where active and inactive cross-respondents made liable jointly and severally for cross-claimant's costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where primary judge held it to be settled law that liability for payment of costs order ordinarily joint and several</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where primary judge considered whether inactive cross-respondents raised a separate and distinct defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">whether inactive cross-respondents submitting parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">whether exercise of discretion to award costs miscarried held: inactive cross-respondents not submitting parties in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">discretion to award costs pursuant to s 43(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) is broad</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">no automatic rules for exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">need for order to be just in circumstances of particular case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">lack of separate and distinct defence not determinative of whether liability for payment of costs order should be joint and several</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">exercise of discretion miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">no sufficient basis for making inactive cross-claimants liable for costs of proceedings in period prior to their joinder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">defence of inactive cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">cross-claimants had to prove case in greater detail in any event because of stance of active cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">liability of inactive cross-respondents to pay costs reduced to 10 percent on joint and several basis with active cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">motion to strike out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">whether claim group description unclear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">whether claim group constitutes all the persons who hold the native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">whether claim is made on behalf of a sub-group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">whether bases of authorisation meet the requirements of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">purported self authorisation, authorisation by elders from surrounding areas and authorisation through an incorporated association costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">s 85a of the native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">whether there was unreasonable conduct on the applicant's behalf</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1479">deterrence of other possible claimants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 891">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 891">application to discontinue proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 891">leave granted native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 891">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 891">exercise of discretion under s 85a of native title act in discontinuance proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 891">conduct of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 745">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 745">costs of notice of motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 745">meaning of 'proceeding' under s 824 of workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 745">whether notice of motion instituted vexatiously or without reasonable cause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 745">whether notice of motion an unreasonable act or omission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 745">application for costs refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 137">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 137">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">oshlack v richmond river council  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">statutory power under environmental planning and assessment legislation to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">"public interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">significant issues of interpretation of that legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">whether discretion with respect to costs miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">judicial power of the commonwealth admiralty and maritime jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">claims relating to possession, ownership or mortgage of ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">claims between co-owners relating to possession, ownership, operation or earnings of ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">admiralty act 1988 (cth), ss. 4(2) , 5 (1), 16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 76(iii).   shipping and navigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">admiralty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">action in rem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">proprietary maritime claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">whether confined to claim by which plaintiff asserts own title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">specific performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">whether available in action in rem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">claim between co-owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">whether extends to equitable co-owners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1994] HCA 54">admiralty act 1988 (cth), ss. 4(2) , 5 (1), 16 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">licence for commercial broadcasting station</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">transfer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">consent of australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">discretion to refuse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">concentration of ownership of broadcasting stations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 17 (1), 89a (1), 90c (1), (3).  administrative bodies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">broadcasting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">supervisory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">licensing functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">transfer of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">discretion to refuse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">unqualified by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">matters relevant to decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">motion for summary dismissal under s 31a federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) of motion for interlocutory injunctive relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">whether the "rubibi applicant" still the registered native title claimant and native title party and thereby entitled to negotiate with the state of western australia future acts on behalf of the yawuru community, including the walman yawuru clan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">s 30 native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">whether rubibi applicant had ceased to be the registered native title claimant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">s 30(2) of the native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">whether rubibi applicant, even if it was the registered native title claimant had been authorised to make original application to the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">ss 61 and 251b native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">whether rubibi applicant entitled to negotiate on behalf of the yawuru community, including the walman yawuru clan with the state.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">proceedings under native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">whether s 85a of the act had application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 926">if so whether applicant in motion engaged in unreasonable conduct such as to enliven s 85(2) displacing prima facie rule that each party bear his or her own costs.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 236" id="cs0">This was not a satisfactory way to conduct this litigation, particularly given the nature of the orders made on 7 March 2008. Having regard to the circumstances above, I am of opinion that in the exercise of my discretion under s 85A(1) of the Act and s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) I should order the Jangga People to pay the costs of the State and Mount Isa Mines in respect of the notice of motion. I discussed the principles applicable to the exercise of the discretion to order costs in Birri Gubba (Cape Upstart) People v State of Queensland [2008] FCA 659 at [20] - [25]. And, I consider that it is appropriate to require the Northern Queensland Land Council to show cause why it should not be ordered to pay those costs on party/party basis having regard to its apparent (on the material before me) responsibility for the costs I have ordered the Jangga People to pay: Knight v FP Special Assets Ltd [1992] HCA 28 ; (1992) 174 CLR 178. I certify that the preceding twenty-seven (27) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares. Associate:

Dated: 18 March 2009

 Solicitor appearing for the Jangga People: Mr P van der Eyk

 Solicitor appearing for the State of Queensland: Ms K Snape

 Solicitor appearing for Whitsunday Regional Council, Issac Regional Council, Charters Towers Regional Council, Ergon Energy Corporation Limited and QLACCA: Mr S Sivarajah

 Solicitor appearing for Mt Isa Mines Limited and Colinta Holdings Pty Ltd: Mr S Cobb

 Solicitor appearing for AgForce Pastoralists Mr M Boge
 Date of Hearing: 5 March 2009

 Date of Judgment: 18 March 2009

 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/236.html

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1696" id="cs1">In March this year, I made, once again, directions to regularise both matters with a view to assisting in the proper formulation of a claim for the persons truly entitled to bring applications under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). At that time the applicants were in default in the Birri-Gubba case. This resulted in the State seeking an order for costs against the Birri-Gubba applicants for wasted time and effort that had been incurred in previous failed attempts to obtain preservation evidence. After hearing argument I ordered that the Birri-Gubba applicants pay 50 per cent of the costs of the State relating to its preparation for and appearance at directions hearings in relation to the issue of what evidence ought to be preserved for the period between 1 December 2006 and 17 October 2007: Birri-Gubba (Cape Upstart) People v State of Queensland [2008] FCA 659. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 926" id="cs2">55 The issues involved are, at one level, complex. The applicants in the first motion have not been represented by solicitors or counsel. I would not, in the circumstances, be prepared to characterise the conduct of the applicants in the first motion as being unreasonable. This is so, even though I have concluded that the first motion has no reasonable prospect of success. The position may well have been different if the applicants in the first motion had been represented by experienced lawyers: cf Birri-Gubba (Cape Upstart) People v State of Queensland [2008] FCA 659. [37] These observations should not be seen in any way as a reflection on Ms Hanigan. Ms Hanigan is a law student who I have no doubt has been doing her best to represent the interests of the applicants in the first motion. They are not in receipt of public funding. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 43 Modification of Subdivision if satisfactory alternative State or Territory provisions</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 85A Costs</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 86 Evidence and findings in other proceedings</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">meeting requisitioned under section 249d corporations act 2001 (cth), and amendment to proposed requisitions foreshadowed under section 249n corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">later events mean purpose of holding meeting has now gone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">ability of court to order that meeting not be held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">"oppression" provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">scope of provision under corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2004] NSWSC 577">use of heading of part as aid to interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">incorporated controlling body of professional football competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">member club</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">decision to exclude member club from competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">power in articles to exclude</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">whether exclusion oppressive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">companies (new south wales) code, s. 320(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">classes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">employees' shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">increase of capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">no resolution of shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">acquiescence of all shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">order that directors purchase shares held by oppressed shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1968] HCA 82">companies act 1961 (vict.), s. 186.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">articles gave pre-emptive rights to existing members in proposed share transfers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">shares to be transferred to non-member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">transferee of legal title in shares to member to avoid concern about pre-emptive rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">beneficial owners of shares deliberately not made apparent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">construction of articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether share transfers inconsistent with pre-emptive rights in articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">subsequent share transfers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether failure to assert pre-emptive rights under articles once aware of earlier share transfers amounts to acquiescence or election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether participating in conduct of company amounted to election to deal with new shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether waiver of pre-emptive rights under articles   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether intentional and wrongful interference with contractual relationship by procuring or participating in breach of contract between members constituted by memorandum and articles   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">various dispositions of assets made and series of decisions and implementation of those decisions in conduct of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">capital raising by share issue accompanied by offer to minority shareholders at substantial undervalue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether conduct of company contrary to interests of members as a whole, or oppressive to or unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether amounts to oppressively conducting affairs of company within meaning of s 232 of corporations act 2001 (cth)   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether statements associated with share transfers and conducting affairs of company amounts to misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to consumer affairs and fair trading act (nt)   limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">breach of contract, claim for damages for tort of intentionally interfering with contractual relations and misleading and deceptive conduct claims out of time under limitation act (nt)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether extension of time appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether material fact ascertained within 12 months of institution of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">citing from="[2009] FCA 292">whether failure to institute proceedings within limitation period resulted from representations or conduct of respondents, and whether such failure was reasonable in view of representations or conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">sections 232-233 corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">share sale agreement/shareholders agreement/services agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">whether vendor's conduct in excluding the purchaser of a 50% share in company from the management of the company amounted to oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">whether necessary for the oppressive conduct to be continuing at the time of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">whether the trial judge's order of a share buy-out appropriate in light of a provisional liquidator being appointed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">(by majority) no order should be made. misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">whether the vendor's giving of contractual warranty misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">whether purchaser relied on the alleged misrepresentations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">(by majority) yes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">citing from="[2008] NSWCA 95">consideration of proper amount of damages.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 292" id="cs0">Such a finding requires consideration of all the circumstances, viewed cumulatively, but not with a hypercritical approach, as the measure is the standard of reasonable directors: De Tocqueville Private Equity Pty Ltd v Linden  Conway Ltd [2006] FCA 1309 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 587.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWCA 95" id="cs1">

129 Other cases are to the contrary. In re Spargos Mining NL (1990) 3 ACSR 1 , a case on s 320 of the Companies (WA) Code also in the terms that the company's affairs "are being conducted" oppressively, it was said at 44 that it was "clear ... from the section itself that it is not necessary that the unfairness be continuing at the time of the petition or at the time when the court comes to consider the matter", but that in the exercise of the discretion it may be thought that there is no present requirement for the grant of relief in relation to past oppression. A number of previous decisions were distinguished on the ground of "the broader formulation of s 320" since they were decided. To the same effect are re Dalkeith Investments Pty Ltd (1984) 9 ACLR 247 at 253 and Reid v Bagot Well Pastoral Co Pty Ltd [1993] SASC 4323 ; (1993) 12 ACSR 197 at 205, on an equivalent s 320. In De Tocqueville Private Equity Pty Ltd v Linden  Conway Ltd, re Linden  Conway Lt d [2006] FCA 1309 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 587 , a case on s 232, it was said at [25] -

 "Finally, it is not necessary that the conduct of which the plaintiffs complain be continuing at the time of the application or at the time when the court comes to consider the matter. However, that question may well be relevant as to whether relief is granted at all or what is the appropriate relief: Re Spargos Mining NL (1990) 3 WAR 166 ; 3 ACSR 1. " </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 232 Grounds for Court order</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 233 Orders the Court can make</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l4">Companies Act 1955 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">appointment of receivers to property of directors and officers of corporate group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">members of corporate group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">pending investigation by australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">possible contraventions of corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">possible liabilities of defendants to third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">nature of application for freezing orders and appointment of receivers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">nature of evidence that may be received on such application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">evidence of wide spread and serious misconduct in operation of affairs of group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">orders necessary and desirable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 433">receivers appointed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 392">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 392">asset preservation orders under s 1323 corporations act 2001 (cth) undertaking proffered in lieu of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 392">weekly allowance for rent, school fees, child support and living expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 392">amount of allowance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 392">not inconsistent with protection of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 392">weekly allowance continued at existing rate</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 392" id="cs0">1 On 12 March 2008 the Court accepted an undertaking given by the first defendant, Norman Carey, along with undertakings by the second defendant, Mr Rundle, the fifth defendant, Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd (Richstar), the ninth defendant, Keypoint Developments Pty Ltd (Keypoint) and the tenth defendant, Silkchime Pty Ltd (Silkchime). The undertakings which had substantially the same effect as an extension of protective orders under s 1323 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (the Act) in respect of the assets of the various defendants, are in effect until 30 June 2008. At that time the undertakings will expire and these proceedings will effectively be at an end. The ex tempore reasons for judgment in relation to the acceptance of the undertakings have been published as: Australian Securities  Investments Commission; In the matter of Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Carey (No 21) [2008] FCA 381. </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 50 ASIC may cause civil proceeding to be begun</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1323 Power of Court to prohibit payment or transfer of money, financial products or other property</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">REAL ESTATE AND BUSINESS AGENTS ACT 1978 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] AATA 808">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] AATA 808">consideration of part 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] AATA 808">42 (divisions 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 ) of the income tax assessment act 1997</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] AATA 808">the objection decision under review is affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">capital gains</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">sale of shares in business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">election to roll over assets into company at same cost base as part of a series of transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">sale agreements to related companies not negotiated at arms length</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">sales deemed to have occurred at market value</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">asset base lifted in value before sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">taxpayers did not incur a capital gain.    taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">tax avoidance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">schemes entered into for the sole or dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">having regard to relevant factors a reasonable person would be satisfied the series of transactions was a scheme entered into to obtain a tax benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">taxpayers did have an arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] AATA 1251">penalty reduced.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">whether a thief who had invested stolen money at interest during the income year, and had later returned the money and interest to the true owner, was liable to tax upon the interest as his income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">whether the money and the interest were held upon constructive trust for the true owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">whether the admixture of the thief's own funds in the investment prevented the conclusion that there was a constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">whether the appeals should be dismissed for want of "clean hands"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">whether the taxpayer should be held liable upon an application of the american doctrine of "claim of right".   equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">thief as constructive trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1226">effect of admixture by trustee of his own funds with trust funds.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">appeal from aat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">applications for extension of time for lodging objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">principles to be applied on exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">evaluation of the prospects of the objection succeeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">whether sale of land within 12 months of purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">whether purchase of beneficial interest in the land relevant to the application of s.26aaa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 553">whether prejudice to the commissioner because of delay in recovery of the tax the subject of the objection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">legislative powers of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">taxation power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">law subjecting investment income of superannuation fund to income tax unless percentage of fund invested in public securities including commonwealth securities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">principles for determining validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51 (ii.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1965] HCA 64">income tax and social services contribution assessment act 1961 (cth) (no. 17 of 1961), s. 11.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 311">taxation and revenue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 311">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 311">personal services income obtained through a personal services entity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 311">whether personal services entity is conducting a personal services business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 311">whether results test met in relevant years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 311">whether income is for producing a result</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 311">decision under review affirmed    income tax assessment act 1997: ss 87-15 , 87-18 , 87-20 , 87-65</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">taxation and revenue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">personal services income obtained through a personal services entity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">whether personal services entity is conducting a personal services business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">whether possible to be "forever exempt"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">whether results test met in relevant years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">whether income is for producing a result</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">failure to take reasonable case to comply with a taxation law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">whether discretion to remit penalty should be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">decision under review varied    income tax assessment act 1997 (cth) part 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2010] AATA 215">42 , ss 84-5, 86-15, 87-15, 87-18   tax administration act 1953 (cth) sch 1 ss 284-75, 284-90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">personal services business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">earlier decision found applicant's company was not conducting a personal services business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">income of company is attributed to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">remitted to respondent for reconsideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">applicant dissatisfied with reconsideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">effect of public ruling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">definition of public ruling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">what constitutes part of a public ruling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">whether public ruling supports more favourable method of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">whether applicant entitled to tax rebate for superannuation contribution on behalf of wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">rebate not available when made by company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">administrative penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">whether applicant or agent failed to take reasonable care to comply with a taxation law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">decision under review set aside in respect of administrative penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">citing from="[2009] AATA 773">remaining objection decisions affirmed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 311" id="cs0">The starting point of the regime is s 84-5(1) which defines "personal services income" in the following manner:

 84-5 Meaning of personal services income
 (1) Your *ordinary income or *statutory income, or the ordinary income or statutory income of any other entity, is your personal services income if the income is mainly a reward for your personal efforts or skills (or would mainly be such a reward if it was your income).

 The parties agreed that the remuneration received by Coopers Consulting from Ajilon during the relevant years is personal services income for the purpose of s 84-5(1) because it was received as a reward for the "personal efforts or skills" of Mr Cooper. That agreement readily accords with the conclusions reached in Re Dibarr Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2004] AATA 1030 ; (2004) 57 ATR 1183 at [22] (Senior Member Beddoe and Member Fisher) and Fowler v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 528 ; (2008) 167 FCR 425 at [24] (Lindgren J). In accordance with s 86-15(1), the personal services income received by Coopers Consulting is treated as the assessable income of Mr Cooper unless the exception contained in s 86-15(3) can be relied on:

 Exception: personal services businesses
 (3) This section does not apply if that amount is income from the *personal services entity conducting a *personal services business.

 On the basis that Coopers Consulting is a "personal services entity" as defined by s 86-15(2), the issue to be determined is whether Coopers Consulting was conducting a personal services business.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 215" id="cs1">The parties agreed that the remuneration received by Coopers Consulting from Ajilon during the relevant years is personal services income for the purpose of s 84-5(1) because it was received as a reward for the "personal efforts or skills" of Mr Cooper. That agreement readily accords with the conclusions reached in Re Dibarr Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2004] AATA 1030 ; (2004) 57 ATR 1183 at [22] (Senior Member Beddoe and Member Fisher) and Fowler v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 528 ; (2008) 167 FCR 425 at [24] (Lindgren J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 773" id="cs2">The claimed failure to take reasonable care arises from the non-disclosure in Mr Taneja's tax returns of the income attributed to him under Part 2-42 of the 1997 Act. The Commissioner says that the factual matrix in Mr Taneja's case, like that of the taxpayer in Fowler v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 528 ; (2008) 167 FCR 425 , clearly falls within the terms of Part 2-42. The Commissioner's written submissions continued at [16]:

 The submissions of the applicant before the Tribunal were unorthodox and generally bespoke a lack of understanding of fundamental aspects of the [personal services income] regime [in Part 2-42]. The applicant's reliance on TR 2001/8 and the public statements of the then Treasurer of Australia were similarly without foundation.

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 21A Non-cash business benefits</title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l4">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l5">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZYA Person may require Commissioner to make an objection decision</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] AATA 419">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] AATA 419">stay application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] AATA 419">applicant's registration as migration agent cancelled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] AATA 419">stay granted subject to prescribed conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 383">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 383">interpretation of s 300(7) of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 383">whether deemed continuation of the applicant's registration had ceased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 383">whether a stay would be futile in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 383">application for stay refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">mara findings made in relation to a number of breaches of code of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">application for a stay pending appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">mara taken to have made decision even if decision later stayed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">application for stay disallowed.    migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">ss 300(1) , 300 (4) and 300 (7)   administrative appeals tribunal act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">ss 41(2)    the migration agent's code of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2007] AATA 1495">schedule 2 of the migration agents regulations 1998</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">appeal from primary judge dismissing application for review of tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">tribunal dismissed application for a stay of the authority's decision disallowing the appellant's re-registration as a migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">tribunal held that amended form of s 300 prevented the tribunal from granting an effective stay order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">interpretation of s 300 as amended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">purpose of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">use of extrinsic materials such as explanatory memoranda in statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">no error found in decision of tribunal or primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 5">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 383" id="cs0">In the primary decision [2] of Seymour's case , the Federal Court (Jacobson J) explained the operation of the relevant sub-sections in s 303 and came to the conclusion that the proper construction of both sub-ss 300(4)(a) and (7) is that the extension of an agent's registration ceases when the respondent decides to refuse the application for registration, even if that decision is later stayed. [3] The Federal Court, in its decision, also addressed the same argument the applicant has made in this matter; that is, that the Tribunal has power to grant a stay pursuant to s 306AA. Jacobson J explained s 306AA is not concerned with a stay of a decision refusing an application for registration which was deemed continuing by force of sub-ss 300(1) and (4). Section 306AA only deals with orders staying a decision under s 303 to cancel or suspend the registration of an agent who has already been registered for the current year, not a deemed registration. [4] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1495" id="cs1">The respondent submitted that the effect of sub-sections 300(4) and (7) is that Mr Vo's registration as a migration agent ceased when MARA made its suspension decision on 23 April 2007. The grant of a stay by the AAT in relation to the suspension decision could not "re-enliven" Mr Vo's registration. It was noted that the AAT has previously considered the application of section 300(4) and (7) in Re Seymour and the Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] AATA 369 ; (2006) 91 ALD 93 ("Seymour ") and reached a similar view. The AAT's decision in Seymour was later affirmed by the Federal Court in Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 649 ; (2006) 91 ALD 610 and the Full Federal Court in Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2007] FCAFC 5 ; (2007) 93 ALD 253. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 5" id="cs2">1 This is an appeal from the judgment of Jacobson J handed down on 31 May 2006 which dismissed an application by Mr Seymour for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"): Seymour v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2006] FCA 649. On 27 April 2006, the Tribunal dismissed an application by Mr Seymour for a stay of a decision made by the Migration Agents Registration Authority ("the Authority") on 20 February 2006. On this date, the Authority decided to refuse an application by Mr Seymour for re-registration as a migration agent for the 12 month period from 24 May 2005 to 23 May 2006.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 41 Operation and implementation of a decision that is subject to review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l5">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 300 Automatic continuation of registration</title>
<title id="l10">NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT ACT 1998 </title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION AGENTS REGULATIONS 1998 </title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION AGENTS REGULATIONS 1998 - REG 7B Stay orders -- prescribed supervisory requirements</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (MIGRATION AGENTS INTEGRITY MEASURES) ACT 2004 NO. 48, 2004 </title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of provision of information to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal asked wrong question or applied wrong test in considering claim of fear of persecution on religious grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness having regard to the manner of examination of independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">lapse of time between entry into australia and bringing of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">consideration of s 91r(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">where appellant converted to christianity while in australia practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">leave to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether respondents prejudiced by granting of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether exceptional circumstances required to be shown by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether allowance to be granted by the court to permit recently published judgments to be understood and applied by legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">grounds not raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">tribunal relied on documents attached to earlier student visa application and on information attached to protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">in written submission to tribunal, applicant's counsel stated that details of claim contained in protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether information given to tribunal for the purpose of the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">tribunal drew to applicant's attention each of documents attached to student visa application, in course of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether tribunal gave particulars of information, explained its relevance, and invited comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether failure to do these things jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether discretion should be exercised to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1338">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1338">information under s.424a(1) does not include findings as to credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1338">reference to gaps in evidence is not information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1338">tribunal entitled to accept or reject evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1338">weight is a matter for the tribunal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1338" id="cs0">Those cases are SZITN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1007 and Hao Jiang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 907.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1757">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1757">application for extension of time in which to file and serve notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1757">whether special reasons exist justifying a grant of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">application to lift stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">maintenance and champerty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">whether change in circumstances since stay granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">whether potential for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">whether solicitors independent from financiers of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">whether, therefore, solicitors in potential conflict with clients</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] WASCA 277">whether plaintiffs have been advised sufficiently of their position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">interlocutory orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">commencing action out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">s52(4) motor accidents act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">discretion to admit and consider evidence on second interlocutory application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">no general rule precluding an unsuccessful applicant for interlocutory orders from repeating the application without fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">whether it is fair and just that time for bringing an action be extended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">after delay significant prejudice not accruing to appellant in respect of liability and damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">whether solicitor's mistakes act as bar to client obtaining extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">hearing on the merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">s75a(8) supreme court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 80">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.11  telecommunications act 1975 , s.43a  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">new zealand sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">bankrupt later domiciled in queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">creditor who proved in new zealand bankruptcy successfully sought sequestration order in australia based on same debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">debtor has no present assets in australia that are not accountable in the new zealand bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">sequestration order opposed on ground of futility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">whether sequestration order ought to have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">whether after-acquired property in australia vests in new zealand trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">possibility of early discharge from second bankruptcy when second bankruptcy based on same debt as first bankruptcy  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">domicile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 450">fate of assets or property in country of new domicile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 213">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 213">person bankrupt in new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 213">request by new zealand court to federal court of australia to act in aid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 213">property of bankrupt in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 213">claim by new zealand revenue authorities in new zealand bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 213">opposition to request by bankrupt person to transfer of property on ground that it would be enforcing a foreign revenue claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 213">scope and purpose of s.29 and scope of conflict of laws rule discussed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">orders in aid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">person declared bankrupt by the high court of new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">bankrupt has assets in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">request by high court of new zealand for the aid of federal court of australia to enable bankrupt's assets in australia to be applied in administration of bankrupt's estate in new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">proved creditors of bankrupt include new zealand revenue authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">whether request for orders in aid can be characterised as an attempt to enforce foreign revenue laws and against public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">discussion of nature of letters of request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">discussion of bankruptcy act 1966 s. 29</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">discussion of procedure to be invoked when requesting aid in bankruptcy matters.  bankruptcy act, 1966 (cth.), s.29  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">person declared bankrupt by high court of new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">bankrupt with assets in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">request by new zealand high court for aid of federal court of australia to enable australian assets to be applied in administration of bankrupt's estate in new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">proved creditors of bankrupt include new zealand revenue authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">whether request for orders in aid could be characterized as attempt to enforce foreign revenue laws and therefore contrary to public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">nature of letters of request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), s. 29.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">orders in aid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">letters of request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">procedure to be followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1981] FCA 45">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), s. 29. in december 1979 ayres was declared bankrupt in new zealand and his estate vested in the official assignee. ayres had not been declared bankrupt in australia but he had certain property here, namely an interest as sole residuary beneficiary under the will of his late father. creditors in new zealand had, at the date of this application, proved for the sum of $78,248; his assets in new zealand had realized almost $50,000. more than sixty per cent of the proved creditors were revenue authorities in new zealand, being the inland revenue department, new zealand post office and new zealand department of customs.  pursuant to letters of request the high court of new zealand sought the aid of the federal court to enable the official assignee to obtain control of the bankrupt's property in australia. the federal court directed service of notice of this application on the bankrupt.  held: (1) it is a well-established principle of public policy that the courts in australia will not enforce the revenue laws of another country.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 29 Courts to help each other</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 116 Property divisible among creditors [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2011] WASC 94">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2011] WASC 94">plaintiffs allege charge ineffective to charge property of company in administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2011] WASC 94">application for leave under s 440d corporations act 2001 (cth) to proceed with counterclaim for rectification and alleging an estoppel and subrogation to another charge  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2011] WASC 94">application to strike out rectification, estoppel and subrogation pleas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2011] WASC 94">considerations relevant to each plea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">leave to commence proceedings against company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">transfer of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">whether proceeding should be transferred from western australia district registry to victoria district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">considerations include the interests of justice, efficiency and administration of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">similar proceedings in victoria district registry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 227">proceedings all arise from collapse of opes prime group companies</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] WASC 94" id="cs0">27 The plaintiffs raised the question of whether there would be a proper contradictor to the defendants' allegations given that they are not a party to the Charge and have sought relief under the Act as a creditor of Westgem. In Beconwood Securities Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2009] FCA 131 , Finkelstein J gave the parties leave to maintain proceedings against a company that was in liquidation notwithstanding that the liquidator had no funds to conduct a defence. In relation to the claims made by Beconwood Securities against the company, his Honour observed that 'in any event, ANZ's defence of the claim against it will require it to put arguments that [the company] would rely on if it were defending the claim' [10]. The same observation can be made in this matter. The defendants' claims against Westgem are intimately connected with the claims made and relief sought by the plaintiffs. There is no doubt that the plaintiffs will contest the defendants' claims. That is confirmed by the plaintiffs' application to strike out much of the defence and counterclaim. It is also relevant that Mr Saraceni is the sole director of Westgem, was responsible for appointing the Administrator and has so far, provided him with his funding.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 227" id="cs1">In Beconwood Securities Pty Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2009] FCA 131 at [2] - [6] his Honour succinctly outlined Beconwood's claims against the respondents to those proceedings. An examination of the outline by his Honour of the complex claims reveals that in many respects the claims are similar to the claims brought by the applicants in these proceedings. There are some differences in this application but those differences essentially are, as I perceive it, differences arising by reason of the proper legal characterisation of the relationships and circumstances arising on the evidence. Of course each applicant's position will differ to some extent but the extent to which there are common issues between not only the Beconwood proceedings and these proceedings but also proceedings in other States is very significant. The common features substantially outweigh the differences. </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 12GM Other orders</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 440D Stay of proceedings</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 942B Financial Services Guide given by financial services licensee--main requirements</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 953B Civil action for loss or damage</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1101B Power of Court to make certain orders</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>