Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">applicant seeking rectification by cancellation of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">construction of s 88 of trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">grounds relied upon not enlivening s 88 of the act   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">quasi summary nature of trade mark opposition proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">orders by consent dismissing appeal to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">undertakings noted including undertaking "not to threaten the respondent ... with any form of action"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">construction of consent orders and undertakings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 1222">threaten in the context intended to comprehend "the initiation" of an action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">race and disability discrimination in employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">approach to fact finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">inferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">whether adverse inferences not adequately based in evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">whether reversal of onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">whether inappropriate application of briginshaw test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">whether relevant disability identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">damages assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">whether error in principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">whether tortious measure appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">compensatory character of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">appeal allowed in part for failure to identify disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">appeal otherwise dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 69">cross-appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">whether indemnity costs should be awarded against self-represented litigant in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 49">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 49" id="cs0">This is an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of Finn J, summarily dismissing an application for an order under s 88(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth): [2009] FCA 1222 ; 83 IPR 71. The application was dismissed with costs, however Finn J subsequently varied the order for costs, and, for reasons given on 15 December 2009, his Honour ordered that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs on an indemnity basis; Wilkshire v Registrar of Trade Marks (No.2) [2009] FCA 1505. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l4">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 62A Application made in bad faith</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 88 Amendment or cancellation--other specified grounds</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">appeal period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification of the decision was in the "prescribed way" under migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification by pre-paid post means the person is taken to have received the document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">bienstein v bienstein  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">removal of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">proceedings for adult child maintenance in family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether a cause pending in a federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether matter arises under the constitution or involves its interpretation.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">appeal from decision of a single justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether leave to appeal is required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether order to refuse removal of proceedings is final or interlocutory.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">application for disqualification of a justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">justice had practised professionally in city where proceedings originated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">no imputed bias.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494C When a person is taken to have received a document from the Minister</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 33">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 33">misconceived and oppressive application to cross-vest proceedings in local court to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 33">indemnity costs order made against applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">whether representations that "ugg boots" were made in australia published on certain websites contravene ss 52 , 53 (eb) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) and ss 18 , 29 (1)(g), (k) of the australian consumer law (schedule 2 to the competition and consumer act 2010 (cth))</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">pecuniary penalties, injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">declarations pursuant to s 21 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 455">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 455">whether gross sum assessment should be made under o 62 r 4(2)(c) of the federal court rules (1979)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 455">whether discount of costs should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1259">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1259">whether it is appropriate to order payment of gross sum costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1259">additional cost for taxation likely to impose significant burden on respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1259">appropriate to order gross sum of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1119">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1119">application by respondent for gross sum costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1119">claim of insufficient notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1119">failure to comply with court orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1119">lack of assets in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 701">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 701">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 701">gross sum costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 701">fixing of gross sum.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 695" id="cs0">147 An order that costs be assessed as a gross sum does not envisage that any process similar to that of taxation should take place, however the power must be used judiciously and after giving the parties an adequate opportunity to make submissions on the matter: Ualesi (t/a Australian Empire Imports) v Expeditors International Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 26. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 455" id="cs1">There could be consequences if the taxation was not conducted in that fashion, which would include the opportunity to re-visit the appropriateness of granting the application under O 62 r 4(2)(c) and ordering costs of and concerning the taxation process itself: see eg Ualesi (t/as Australian Empire Imports) v Expeditors International Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 26 ; Australasian Performing Rights Association [1999] FCA 1006 and s 37N of the Federal Court Act. As far as costs are concerned, this could involve ordering any costs to be paid on a solicitor and own client basis. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1259" id="cs2">The purpose of an order such as O 62 r 4 is to avoid the expense, delay and aggravation involved in litigation arising out of the taxation process: Beach Petroleum NL v Johnson (No 2) (1995) 57 FCR 119 at 120; Leary v Leary [1987] 1 WLR 72. The power to order gross sum of costs is one which has to be exercised judicially, and after giving the parties adequate opportunity to make submissions on the matter: Auspine Ltd v Australian Newsprint Mills Ltd [1999] FCA 673 ; (1999) 93 FCR 1 ; Ualesi (t/a Australian Empire Imports) v Expeditors International Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 26. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1119" id="cs3">4 The purpose of the rule is to avoid the expense, delay and aggravation involved in protracted litigation arising out of the taxation process: Beach Petroleum v LV Johnson (1995) 57 FCR 119 at 120. An order that costs be assessed as a gross sum does not require that any process similar to that involved in taxation should take place. However, the power must be exercised judicially and after giving the parties adequate opportunity to make submissions on the matter: Ualesi t/a Australian Empire Imports v Expeditors International Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 26.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 701" id="cs4"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">austudy payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">whether full-time student</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">cessation of study</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">whether administrative error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">claimed financial hardship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">whether special circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">whether debt should be waived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">ssat decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2007] AATA 1659">aat review</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1659" id="cs0">The term ' special circumstances' is not defined in the Act, however the Federal Court and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal have considered the issue in fine detail on a number of occasions. Some key principles and issues emerge: (a) each case must be judged on its merits and involve factors or circumstances outside the norm ( Re Beadle and DGSS (1984) 6 ALD 1 , also Dranichnikov v Centrelink (2003) FCAFC 133) ; (b) financial hardship must be considered, but there must be other significant factors as well ( SDSS v Hales (1958) 82 FCR 162 ); (c) the circumstances must be such that it would be unjust, unreasonable or inappropriate for the debt to be recovered ( Ivovic and DGSS (1981) 3 ALD N95) ; (d) the power to waiver is discretionary and must be based on reasons, rationality, purposiveness and morality, with discretion being exercised consistent with the spirit and purpose of legislation (see Rigney and SDFCS (2000) AATA 640 , also Kuipers and SDSS (1998) 52 ALD 663) ; (e) In the recent case of Angelakos and DEWR (2007) FCA 29 January, it was determined that the Secretary is not obliged to waive the debt even if the three conditions of Section 1237 AAD of the Act are satisfied. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 - SECT 6 Costs certificates for respondents--Federal appeals</title>
<title id="l2">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l3">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 6 Operational service--general outline</title>
<title id="l4">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 7 Eligible war service</title>
<title id="l5">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 9 War-caused injuries or diseases</title>
<title id="l6">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 120 Standard of proof</title>
<title id="l7">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 120A Reasonableness of hypothesis to be assessed by reference to Statement of Principles</title>
<title id="l8">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 196B Functions of Authority</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">where previous litigation in relation to lawfulness of the seizure and copying of a hard drive pursuant to a warrant issued under s 3e of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">where present application concerns right to obtain a copy of seized material pursuant to s 3n of the crimes act 1914 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether unreasonable not to have pursued present claim in the previous proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether claim could have been raised in previous proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether present application arises out of substantially the same facts as previous application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether risk of inconsistent judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether special circumstances justifying decision not to stay present proceeding practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">section 24(1a) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 183">whether judgment dismissing or staying proceeding on ground of anshun estoppel interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">commissioner published guidelines to effect that he would concede confidentiality in respect of, and deny himself access to, certain advising papers of external accountants, unless he or an officer of a certain rank of the australian taxation office ("ato") should decide that there were "exceptional circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">in proceedings before the court, being appeals under part ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth), taxpayers gave discovery, and claimed that certain documents discovered were covered by the "accountants' concession" within the guidelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">officer of appropriate rank within the ato decided that there were exceptional circumstances, and approved of access to the documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">different ato officer caused a notice to produce the documents to issue to taxpayers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">taxpayers issued this present proceeding challenging the senior officer's decision allowing access, under s 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) ("ad(jr) act") and under s 39b(1) and (1a) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) (" judiciary act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">application for summary dismissal of proceeding based on suggested incompetency of present application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether decision to allow access was a "decision of an administrative character made ... under an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether guidelines were "an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">scope of "matter ... arising under any laws made by the parliament" within s 39b(1a)(c) of judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">test for summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">meaning of "no reasonable prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">summary dismissal of proceedings against certain respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application of s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">inapplicability to applications to strike out parts of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">nature of "reasonable prospect" assessment required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit of respondents denying relevant knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit unanswered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">generality of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit material insufficient to demonstrate no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">motion for summary dismissal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">in the matter of an appeal by gaye alexandra mary luck  appeal against order refusing leave to issue process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">whether leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">where proposed action frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">whether order final or interlocutory.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">injury by accident arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">death of worker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">negligence of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">option of dependants to apply for compensation or take other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">award of compensation obtained by widow on behalf of herself and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">effect of award as barring claim by dependants under lord campbell's act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation acts 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">1946 (no. 3806</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">no. 5128) (vict.)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">wrongs act 1928 (no. 3807) (vict.), part iii.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">the 1946 workers' compensation rules, rr. 8, 81.*  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">supreme court (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">dismissal of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">rules of the supreme court (vict.), order xxv., rr. 2, 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 689">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 689">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 689">student (temporary) (class tu) visa.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 689">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 689">application for extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 689">delay.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 689" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 69 Exception: business records</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 75 Exception: interlocutory proceedings</title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 170 Evidence relating to certain matters</title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 171 Persons who may give such evidence</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 172 Evidence based on knowledge, belief or information</title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 183 Inferences</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Declarations of right</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 22 Determination of matter completely and finally</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION LITIGATION REFORM ACT 2005 NO. 137, 2005 </title>
<title id="l14">PROPERTY LAW ACT 1974 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">employer issued directive that flex leave would not be approved for staff to participate in a national union day of protest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">test for grant of interim injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">whether union is an ' eligible person ' within meaning of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">employee entitled to flex leave subject to operational requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">whether employee injured in his employment or had his position altered to his detriment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">whether directive issued for a prohibited reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 176">held: there are serious questions to be tried warranting the grant of interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">termination of employment of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">applicant participated in industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">applicant delegate of industrial organisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">whether applicant's employment was terminated for a proscribed reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">whether respondent has discharged the reverse onus imposed in unlawful termination matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">whether respondent has provided an explanation of the real reason for termination of applicant's employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">appropriate remedy in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">whether a civil penalty should be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1585">appropriate recipient of any penalty imposed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1585" id="cs0">2 The applicant sought interim relief under s 838 of the WR Act and s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The application for interim relief was heard on 26 September 2007. On 27 September 2007, I ordered that the applicant be reinstated to the position he formerly held with the respondent until further order or until determination of these proceedings: Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1506.
 </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 RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">formation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">novation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">implied novation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">assignment of chose of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">whether right of rescission of contract assignable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 288">good faith and fair dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">offer and acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether letter constituted contractual offer to vary existing contract and create new contract between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">where language of offer ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">assessment of mutually known facts re contractual background and shared beliefs of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether conduct partially conforming to letter of offer constituted implied acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">mutually understood purpose of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether response to offer was rejection of it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">whether response to offer merely constituted posturing and negotiation  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">no immediate or guaranteed increase in earnings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">likelihood of future increases in earnings  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">construction of terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">meaning of "general commercial refuse"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">in context of agreement with local council to operate waste depot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">meaning of "additional income"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">in context of moneys required to be remitted to local council from fees charged for receipt of liquid waste at waste depot  remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">restitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">doctrine of unjust enrichment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 61">discussion about controversy and debate in australia surrounding development of doctrine and its applicability to claims in contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">rescission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">time of essence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">intimation by vendors before date for completion of inability to complete</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">notice of rescission by purchasers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">purchasers' readiness and willingness to complete</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 51">whether vendors estopped from asserting purchasers' inability to complete.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">torrens system land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">unregistered lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">covenant to pay rent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">re-entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">right of landlord to damages for loss of benefit of covenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">fundamental breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 14">repudiation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">exclusive distribution agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">statements preceding contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether promissory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">statement that distributor would devote best efforts to distribute products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether warranty or mere representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">term implied by statute that distributor would "use best efforts" to promote products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether further term implied that distributor not to do anything inimical to market for products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">distributor developing own capacity to manufacture principal's products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">orders for principal's products deferred to be met with distributor's products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether breach of best efforts term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">uniform commercial code (u.s.), s. 2-306(2).  trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">distributorship agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether fiduciary relationship between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">importation of fiduciary duties into commercial transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">relevance of terms of contract to existence of fiduciary relationship.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">rent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">covenant to pay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">right to re-enter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">re-entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 47">whether landlord entitled to damages for breach of covenant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">7, 9, 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">15, 19</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">22, 26, 28</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">29 october 2009;</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">judge : vickery j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">7, 9, 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">15, 19</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">22, 26, 28</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">29 october 2009; 9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">10, 12</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">13 november 2009 date of judgment : 12 march 2010 case may be cited as : ambridge investments pty ltd v baker  ors medium neutral citation : [2010] vsc 59</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">definition of "joint venture"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">conduct giving rise to implied agreement of joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in negotiation towards a joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in a joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">statute of frauds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">s.126 instruments act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">no acquisition or disposition of land under joint venture agreement.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">entitlement to equitable relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">discretionary factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">conduct alleged not sufficiently related to plaintiff's cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.23">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">claim for a declaration not a claim for equitable relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.24">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in negotiation towards a joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.25">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">equitable fiduciary obligations arising in a joint venture.  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.26">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">alleged detriment out of proportion to relief sought.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.27">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">admissions by conduct in a civil proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.28">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">adoption of company accounts by directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.29">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">conduct giving rise to implied agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.30">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">admissibility and use of post contractual conduct.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.31">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">order 18 of supreme court (general civil procedure) rules 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.32">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">representative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.33">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">whether applies to trust property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.34">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">prosecution of proceeding by plaintiff not in a representative capacity.  trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.35">citing from="[2010] VSC 59">creation of express trust by words and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">injunction preventing the use of a trademark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">steps taken to avoid injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">whether it is appropriate to seek a further injunction or move for contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 8">further injunction granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">licence of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">non derogation from grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">independent rule of law not an implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">not confined to dealings in land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">applied to trade mark licence so as not to frustrate that licence contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">restraining applicant from operating or allowing or permitting another to operate restaurant using a particular trade mark in proximity to respondent's restaurant practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">whether declaration should be amended trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">licence to use trade mark to operate a restaurant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">whether change in ownership avoids licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 867">meaning of 'operate'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2007] VSC 273">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2007] VSC 273">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2007] VSC 273">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2007] VSC 273">whether futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2007] VSC 273">whether likely to occasion irremediable prejudice.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 59" id="cs0">[113] Gleeson CJ and Kirby P.

 [114] Geebung Investments Pty Ltd v Varga Group Investments (No 8) Pty Ltd (1995) 7 BPR 14 ,551, 14,569-70 per Kirby P.

 [115] [1982] HCA 24 ; (1982) 149 CLR 337 at 352. [116] (1990) 20 NSWLR 310 at 315-316. See too: Cross on Evidence (Seventh Australian Edition at [39290]); and Miller v JLCS Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 74 at [118] . [117] (2001) 53 NSWLR 153 at 163---165 . [118] Lennon v Scarlet  Co [1921] HCA 42 ; (1921) 29 CLR 499 at 409; Perry v Suffields Ltd (1916) 2 Ch 187 ; Sagacious Procurement Pty Ltd v Symbion Health Ltd (Formerly Mayne Group Ltd) [2008] NSWCA 149.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 8" id="cs1">1 JLCS Pty Ltd (whose directors include Lionel Miller and Joel Distiller) is the owner of the trade mark "Squires Loft". On 9 February 2007 a judge found that Lionel and Joel had granted Harold Miller and Saul Miller a licence to operate a steakhouse restaurant at Goldie Place in Melbourne, under the name "Squires Loft": Miller v JLCS Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 74 ; (2007) 158 FCR 1. The judge made a declaration to that effect. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 867" id="cs2">9 The evidence at the first trial was that Harold and Saul operated the City restaurant through their company, SLCS. This was mentioned in the reasons for judgment on several occasions. For example when recording a number of matters that were not in dispute between the parties Sundberg J said that one of those things was "that the City restaurant was, through their company, Harold and Saul's: Miller [2007] FCA 74 ; 158 FCR 1 [42]. 15 Although a good deal of argument was devoted to the meaning and effect of the declaration it is, in my opinion, quite clear that Harold and Saul's declared right is not in any way dependent upon them being shareholders in SLCS or unit holders in the unit trust. This is so for several reasons. The first and most obvious is that the declaration makes no mention of SLCS. The second and equally important reason is that according to its terms the declaration is not concerned with the ownership of the City restaurant. The right it records is a right to "operate" the restaurant using the Squires Loft mark. The "operation" of a restaurant is something different from its ownership. Next there is Sundberg J's finding at Miller [2007] FCA 74 ; 158 FCR 1 [79] that the licence is unconditional. That is to say the right to "operate" the City restaurant using the mark is unlimited, and runs until the death of the survivor of Harold and Saul. This finding is inconsistent with the supposed limitation.  He also rejected their claim that they were joint owners of the trade mark. Sundberg J did, however, find that Harold and Saul were entitled to use the mark. During the course of his reasons Sundberg J made the following observations on this topic: Miller [2007] FCA 74 ; 158 FCR 1 [181]-[195]
 Lionel wanted to assist his father and brother establish a business. He spent a lot of time on the project. He took the lease and licence in his own name to facilitate the matter. 2 This unfortunate piece of litigation is not the first occasion upon which the parties have come to court. Indeed, the current dispute centres around what was decided in their earlier action. That action determined the rights of the parties to the trade mark "Squires Loft". The applicant, JLCS, is the owner of the mark as well as a device mark that includes the words "Squires Loft --- Steak Specialists". In the earlier action ( Miller v JLCS Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 74 ; (2007) 158 FCR 1) the trial judge, Sundberg J, granted a declaration that the respondents in that action, Harold Miller and Saul Miller (father and son), "are entitled to operate the City restaurant under the name Squires Loft". The City restaurant is located in Goldie Place, Melbourne. The parties to this action are at odds over the meaning of the declaration. In any event, JLCS contends that, whatever be its meaning, Harold and Saul's entitlement to use the mark in the operation of the City restaurant has come to an end. 7 Earlier, at Miller [2007] FCA 74 ; 158 FCR 1 [79] Sundberg J noted:
 The fact that no restrictions were placed by Lionel and Joel upon Harold and Saul's use of the name merely means that they were at liberty to use it, unconditionally, in the City restaurant for as long as they wished. It indicates the amplitude of the agreement that was undoubtedly made, but provides no occasion for expanding it. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] SAWCT 70" id="cs3">11 The first difficulty with this analysis is that having found the "subcontract agreement" inoperative the learned President failed to approach the matter on the basis of what then were the terms and conditions operating between the parties. Indisputably there was an agreement between them. In Miller v JLCS Pty Ltd [108] Sundberg J ruled contracts may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties [109] . He then stated [110] :-
 "It has generally been accepted since the House of Lords decision in James Miller  Partners Ltd v Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd [1970] AC 583 that while evidence of subsequent conduct is admissible to determine the existence of a contract, it is not admissible to determine the terms of a contract: see D W McLauchlan, 'Contract Formation, Contract Interpretation, and Subsequent Conduct' (2006) 25 University of Queensland Law Journal 77. This rule must be understood in its context.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] VSC 273" id="cs4">16 Broadtel relies on what was said in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd, [7] as recently applied by Sundberg J in Miller v JLCS Pty Ltd. [8] In Byrne, after referring to the criteria listed in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings, [9] the High Court (Brennan CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ) said:

"[A]s Deane J has observed, [10] the cases in which the criteria in BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings have been applied in this Court are cases in which there was a formal contract, complete on its face. He pointed out that a rigid approach should be avoided in cases, such as the present, where there is no formal contract. In those cases the actual terms of the contract must first be inferred before any question of implication arises. That is to say, it is necessary to arrive at some conclusion as to the actual intention of the parties before considering any presumed or imputed intention. " [11]

Their Honours then quoted the observations of Deane J in Hawkins v Clayton [12] as to the test to be applied in cases where the parties have not spelt out the full terms of their contract: [13]

"[A] court should imply a term by reference to the imputed intention of the parties if, but only if, it can be seen that the implication of the particular term is necessary for the reasonable or effective operation of a contract of that nature in the circumstances of the case. " (emphasis added)</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] SAWCT 25" id="cs5">13 Though I have concluded the parties did not contract in the terms of the Contract Carriers Agreement (TB Vol 1 p 130, submissions tr 212), on the other hand it is indisputable that there was an agreement entered into between the parties. What then were the terms of that agreement. In Miller v JLCS Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 74 Sundberg J noted that contracts may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties (par [117]). He stated (par [118]):-
 "It has generally been accepted since the House of Lords decision in James Miller  Partners Ltd v Whitworth Street Estates (Manchester) Ltd [1970] AC 583 that while evidence of subsequent conduct is admissible to determine the existence of a contract, it is not admissible to determine the terms of a contract: see D W McLauchlan, 'Contract Formation, Contract Interpretation, and Subsequent Conduct' (2006) 25 University of Queensland Law Journal 77. This rule must be understood in its context.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 43 Trade mark likely to deceive or cause confusion</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 60 Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia</title>
<title id="l3">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 129 Groundless threats of legal proceedings</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">PARTNERSHIP ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l6">Partnership Act 1958 - SECT 28 Rules etc. of partners when not subject to special agreement</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">nais v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">substantial delay between first tribunal hearing and tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether delay resulted in real and substantial risk of prejudice to appellants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether prejudice to appellants can be inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether delay by administrative tribunal constitutes denial of procedural fairness or failure to conduct review as required by law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether decision of administrative tribunal may be set aside following substantial delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">effect of delay on question of assessing appellants' demeanour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">calculation of the period of delay.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">migration act 1958 (cth), s 420 provides for an objective of administrative review that is "fair, just, economical, informal and quick"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">relevance of s 420 to complaint of delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">special considerations relevant to delay in asylum cases.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">significance of delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">grounds for judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether delay affected the refugee review tribunal's capacity to make a proper assessment of demeanour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether there was a real and substantial risk that the tribunal's capacity to assess the appellants was impaired.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">assessment of fairness of procedures followed by administrative decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">substantial delay between first tribunal hearing and tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">limited role of courts performing judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">relevance of general notions of fairness and justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">relevance of authority on delay in context of appeals against judicial determinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">importance of contextual factors in assessing complaint of delay.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">substantial delay between first tribunal hearing and tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">appropriate remedy where denial of procedural fairness due to substantial delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">failure by appellants to seek mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2005] HCA 77">whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 537">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 537">application for review of refugee review tribunal decision refusing protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 537">hearing conducted by tribunal under s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 537">tribunal reconstituted under s 422 following hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 537">decision made by reconstituted tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 537">whether failure to give the applicant a further hearing before reconstituted tribunal was a denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 86">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 86">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 86">review of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 86">whether tribunal breached s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 86">whether tribunal failed to accord the applicant procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 86">whether tribunal failed to take account of relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 86">whether the tribunal decision vitiated by apprehended or actual bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">claimed failure of rrt's duty of enquiry to verify authenticity of foreign official documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">no evidentiary basis established for claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">claim incapable of succeeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">additional claim that rrt's adverse findings not supported by positive evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">rrt not required to provide positive evidence to support findings adverse to appellant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1595">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">relationship to s 357a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">construction of s 357a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">application of procedural fairness provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">whether denial of procedural fairness at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">tribunal affirmed decision cancelling applicant's visa because business sponsor did not comply with undertakings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">tribunal and applicant unaware that delegate had already approved another business sponsor migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">s 349</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">a source of power not of jurisdiction migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">failure to take account of relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">whether tribunal fixed with constructive knowledge of minister's approval decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">whether tribunal had duty to inquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">whether approval decision was a relevant consideration migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">erroneous assumption of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 1308">whether error went to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v sglb  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">expert medical advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">psychological state of applicant assumed to be possible explanation for unsatisfactory evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by failing to order further psychological assessment of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by accepting that applicant suffered stress disorder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether denial of procedural fairness by acceptance of effects of disorder on applicant without expert medical advice.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">privative clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 32">whether putative errors of the refugee review tribunal fell within the operation of s 474 of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 3">state rail authority of new south wales v earthline constructions pty limited (in liquidation)  ors  appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 3">circumstances in which appellate court will set aside credibility findings.  appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 3">nature.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1471">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1471">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1471">malaysian claiming political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1471">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1471">no jurisdictional error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1471">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1471" id="cs0">

 21. In his written submissions, the applicant's solicitor referred to WAEJ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 188 , SAAK v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs (2002) 121 FCR 185 , and MZXDH v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 719. The first two of these cases contain statements in which a Full Court caution against making "an adverse finding on the credit of [a person] by reference to demeanour alone" . The judgments also suggest that a Tribunal should "identify how the demeanour of the applicant caused the tribunal to conclude" that evidence should be discarded. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 420 Refugee Review Tribunal's way of operating</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422 Reconstitution of Refugee Review Tribunal--unavailability of member</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422A Reconstitution of Tribunal for efficient conduct of review</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">decision to authorise an 'eligible applicant' to make an application for the issue of examination summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">whether asic required to give reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">whether asic required to provide discovery</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">uniform civil procedure rules pt 7 r 7.4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">representation of concurrent interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">whether requirement that claims of all persons give rise to a substantial common issue of law or fact satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">whether discretion should be exercised to order that proceedings no longer be carried on by plaintiffs as representing other members of group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">application to strike out part of claim on basis that no course of action is disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">corporations law 2001 (cth) ss 1012a, 1012a(3), 1013c and 1013d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">requirements for pleading claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">requirements for pleading loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">civil liability act 2002 nsw</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">pt 1a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] NSWSC 252">whether defence of contributory negligence is available to a claim for breach of s 1012a of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">representative proceeding under pt iva of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">application for court's approval under s 33v of settlement of the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">86 group members of whom 49 gave opt out notices, leaving applicant and 36 group members (total 37)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">83 group members, including the 49, settled with respondent, leaving three who had not</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">terms of the settlement with the 83 not disclosed by the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">whether it was likely that there were fewer than seven group members remaining so that s 33l of the act was activated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">one element of group definition was that member "suffered loss" as a result of respondent's conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1849">whether that condition was no longer satisfied in relation to the 83.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1849" id="cs0">3 I set out the general nature of the facts alleged in the amended statement of claim in my reasons for judgment on an earlier pleading dispute: see Stoyef v Masu Financial Management Pty Ltd (2008) 66 ACSR 585 ; [2008] FCA 897. It suffices for present purposes to note that:

 • Mr Stoyef brought the proceeding as a representative party;
 • he and the group members are persons who were clients of a financial services business conducted by the respondent (Masu) and who, in reliance on advice given by Masu, invested in one or more "Westpoint Products" as defined in para 2(b) of the amended statement of claim, and "suffered loss" as a result;
 • excluded from the group members are persons who were represented in another specified proceeding against Masu or who had brought any other proceeding against it in respect of circumstances similar to those referred to; and
 • generally speaking, the Westpoint Products were defined as financial products in the nature of promissory notes issued by Westpoint Corporation Pty Ltd (Westpoint) or by other entities within the group of companies known as the Westpoint Group (Westpoint entities). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601ED When a managed investment scheme must be registered</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601EE Unregistered schemes may be wound up</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 764A Specific things that are financial products (subject to Subdivision D)</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 766B Meaning of financial product advice</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1011B Definitions</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1012A Obligation to give Product Disclosure Statement--personal advice recommending particular financial product</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1012B Obligation to give Product Disclosure Statement--situations related to issue of financial products</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1012C Obligation to give Product Disclosure Statement--offers related to sale of financial products</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013A Who must prepare Product Disclosure Statement</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013C Product Disclosure Statement content requirements</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013D Product Disclosure Statement content--main requirements</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013E General obligation to include other information that might influence a decision to acquire</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1022B Civil action for loss or damage</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l16">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">kuligowski v metrobus  issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">whether decision of review officer under the workers' compensation and rehabilitation act 1981 (wa) ("the act") pt iiia div 3 is a final decision for the purposes of issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">application by employer under s 60 of the act disputing liability to pay compensation for injuries incurred at work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">review officer found that the worker's injury had "resolved"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">leave to institute proceedings under s 93d of the act for damages at common law refused on the grounds of issue estoppel.  issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">whether the issues arising in district court proceedings were the same issues decided by the review officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 34">review officer's findings were ambiguous.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">general contractual principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">construction and interpretation of contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">contract granting option to purchase land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">variation of terms of option by subsequent deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">whether such the deed as varied was subject to an implied term that it was conditional upon finance being obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">whether terms of deed were ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">owner of land sold property to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">repudiation  contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">general contractual principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1999] WASCA 11">failure of innocent party to prove that but for the breach it would have been able to perform its contractual obligations</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l2">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l3">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 10 Commission may make awards</title>
<title id="l4">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 11 When award may be made</title>
<title id="l5">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 19 Review of awards</title>
<title id="l6">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 48 What is a National decision?</title>
<title id="l7">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 50 Adoption of National decisions</title>
<title id="l8">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 52 Variation of awards and other orders on adoption of National decisions or making of State decisions</title>
<title id="l9">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 145 Establishment of Commission</title>
<title id="l10">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 151A Name of Commission in Court Session to be the Industrial Court of New South Wales</title>
<title id="l11">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 152 Commission in Court Session superior court of record</title>
<title id="l12">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 153 Jurisdiction of Commission in Court Session</title>
<title id="l13">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 162 Procedure generally</title>
<title id="l14">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 163 Rules of evidence and legal formality</title>
<title id="l15">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 166 Representation of parties</title>
<title id="l16">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 208 Functions of Industrial Registrar and Deputy Industrial Registrar</title>
<title id="l17">FAMILY PROVISION ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 100">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 100">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 100">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 100">fact finding not the function of judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 100">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 100">bias.</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] HCA 29">applicant nabd of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">appellant, an iranian, sought a protection visa on the basis that he had converted to christianity after leaving iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugee review tribunal twice affirmed decision to refuse the appellant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">relying on information contained in a country profile, the tribunal distinguished between christians in iran who quietly go about their devotions and those who actively or conspicuously proselytise, and considered that only the latter group would encounter a real chance of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal asked itself a wrong question by seeking to categorise the way in which the appellant expressed his beliefs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal addressed whether appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal had committed jurisdictional error similar to the error identified in appellant s395/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs .  international human rights law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">ground of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">freedom of religion as a basic human right.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">internal protection principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">well-founded fear of persecution not extending to whole country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">relocation in country of nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">reasonableness of relocation alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">nature of inquiry decision-maker required to undertake.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 24 Contempt</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </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 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 440 Refugee Review Tribunal may restrict publication or disclosure of certain matters</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">service of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">application to set aside service of originating process outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">whether causes of action relied upon fall within the itemised cases contained in order 8 rule 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">whether it is necessary for an applicant to show a prima facie case on each cause of action relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">in relation to a claim under s.52 of the trade practices act 1974 , necessity to show that the respondent carries on business in australia.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">service of originating process outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">application to set aside order granting leave to serve originating process outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">meaning of prima facie case requirement of o.8 r.2(2)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">whether prima facie case established in present case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">whether evidence sworn from information and belief can be relied upon in an application seeking an order pursuant to o.8 r.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">discretion under o.1 r.8 to dispense with prima facie case requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">whether federal court forum coveniens.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">statements allegedly made regarding progress of litigation in scotland and in the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">s.52 trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 70">s.11 fair trading act 1985 (vic).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">interim interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether serious issues to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether applicant contractor may enjoin respondent principal from taking further steps to demand or obtain payment under performance guarantees issued by respondent banks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether applicant contractor guilty of unconscionable conduct in contravention of trade practices act 1974 (cth) s 51aa.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">leave to serve proceeding in india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">federal court rules o 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether proceeding of kind(s) mentioned in o 8 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 881">whether prima facie case of contravention of s 51aa if the trade practices act 1974 (cth) by calling on performance guarantees by respondent banks when no contractual entitlement to do so.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 825">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 825">service out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 825">alleged contraventions of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 825">alleged misleading or deceptive and/or negligent conduct in manufacturing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 825">criteria for grant of leave to serve out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 825">whether causes of action fall within jurisdiction of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 825">leave granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">service of originating process out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">causes of action in misleading and deceptive conduct in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">breach in the united states of contract made in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">conduct constituting breach of fiduciary duty allegedly occurred in the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">claim for breach of fiduciary duty renders proceeding one to which o 8 r 1 does not apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 630">leave to serve out of the jurisdiction further amended application and statement of claim omitting cause of action in breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 881" id="cs0">37 In my view, Clough has a prima facie case for the relief variously claimed in that, for reasons I set out below, ONGC would arguably be in breach of the contract and acting contrary to the express terms of the performance guarantees and acting unconscionably, in contravention of s 51AA of the Act, if it were to take further steps in making demands or obtaining payment under the performance guarantees: Merpro Montassa Ltd v Conoco Specialty Products Inc [1991] FCA 70 ; (1991) 28 FCR 387 , 390; Western Australia v Vetter Trittler Pty Ltd (in liq) (1991) 30 FCR 102 , 110; Sydbank Soenderjylland A/S v Bannerton Holdings Pty (1996) 68 FCR 539 , 549; Eurogold Ltd v Oxus Holdings (Malta) Ltd [2006] FCA 1270. It is not necessary for an applicant seeking leave to show a prima facie cause of action in respect of each of the causes of action pleaded: Bray v F Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd [2003] FCAFC 153 ; (2003) 130 FCR 317 ; Traxon Industries Pty Ltd v Emerson Electric Co [2006] FCA 450 ; (2006) 230 ALR 297 , 311 [65]. Nevertheless, Clough does so here.  26 It is contended by Clough that this Court has jurisdiction in the proceedings. In my view this is so because:

 (a) Clough claims that ONGC has contravened and may again contravene s 51AA of the Act;
 (b) by s 86(1) of the Act jurisdiction is conferred on this Court in any matter arising under the Act in respect of which a civil proceeding has been instituted under Part VI; and
 (c) by s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), the original jurisdiction of this Court also includes jurisdiction in any matter arising under any laws made by the Commonwealth Parliament (other than criminal matters),

See generally: Traxon Industries Pty Ltd v Emerson Electric Co [2006] FCA 450 ; (2006) 230 ALR 297 , 308 [50]-[51] ([2006] FCA 450). See also, Burgundy Royale Investments v Westpac Banking Corporation (1987) 18 FCR 212 , 219; Eurogold Ltd v Oxus Holdings (Malta) Ltd [2007] FCA 811 [15]-[19].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 825" id="cs1">Order 8 in its present form commenced on the 1 August 2006. The form of the repealed Order 8 differs materially from the current Order 8, in that the former Order 8 rule 1, due to the inclusion of sub-rule 1(n), had been construed in a way that required each cause of action pleaded in the statement of claim to be within one or more of the categories listed in Order 8 rule 1. In that regard, the applicant referred the Court to the dicta of French J in Traxon Industries Pty Ltd v Emerson Electric Co [2006] FCA 450 ; (2006) 230 ALR 297 at [63] - [64] , where his Honour observed as follows:

 The question that then arises is whether, given that the causes of action in misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of contract are within O 8 r 1, that is sufficient to satisfy the requirement that the rule "applies to the proceeding" within the meaning of O 8 r 2(2)(b). As to that von Doussa J in Delco Australia said (at [35]):

 In this Court r 1 (n) makes express provision for a proceeding where a proceeding does not fall squarely within one of the heads enumerated in the earlier paragraphs. In my opinion r 1(n) makes it clear that an originating process to be served out of the Commonwealth must be confined to causes of action that fall wholly within one or several of the heads in r 1.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 630" id="cs2">1 Traxon Industries Pty Ltd (Traxon) applied to the Court by motion dated 18 April 2006 for leave to serve proceedings on Emerson Electric Co (Emerson) in the United States of America (USA). The proceedings arose out of a dispute between Traxon and Emerson connected with the performance of a Confidentiality Agreement and a Distributorship Agreement relating to the marketing and sale, in the USA, of oil level control devices manufactured by Traxon. Traxon's causes of action against Emerson were for misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), breach of contract, breach of duty of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty. For reasons published on 26 April 2006 the motion was adjourned and Traxon given leave to amend its statement of claim and to file further affidavit evidence in support of its application --- Traxon Industries Pty Ltd v Emerson Electric Co [2006] FCA 450. The principal reason for the decision not to accede to Traxon's motion was its inclusion in the application and statement of claim of the causes of action arising out of breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty. These causes of action were based entirely on conduct allegedly committed by Emerson in the United States. They did not otherwise fall within any of the categories of causes of action to which the relevant rule of Court, O 8, authorising service out of the jurisdiction, applies. </sentence>
</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">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l3">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 1 Short title.</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 86 Jurisdiction of Court.</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>