Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 60">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 60">scope of privative provisions in the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 60">review proceedings under s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) relying on the hickman provisos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 60">review of the commissioner's exercise or failure to exercise his discretion under s 227(3) of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) to remit the whole or part of the additional tax payable by a taxpayer under s 226k estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 60">availability of anshun estoppel following the dismissal, under order 35a rule 3(1)(a) of the federal court rules , of an appeal against an appealable objection decision under the taxation administration act 1953 (cth), as a result of an applicant's default by failing to attend a directions hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 60">availability of anshun estoppel following recovery proceedings in the supreme court of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">szfde v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed a decision refusing the appellants' application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the appellants did not attend the tribunal hearing as a result of fraudulent advice given by a purported registered migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether there was fraud "by" or "on" the tribunal.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">inquisitorial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">distinction between tribunal process and inter partes litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether fraud practised by an agent upon the applicants for a protection visa subverted the operation of div 4 of pt 7 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether this fraud led to the jurisdiction of the tribunal remaining constructively unexercised.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">availability of constitutional writs in cases of fraud.</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="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">industrial law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">private clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">whether protection from challenge on constitutional ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12),s. 51(xxxv)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">conciliation and arbitration act 1904 (cth),ss. 60, 119.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">removal of causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">appeals from judgments, decrees or orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">determination by federal court on stated case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">no right of appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">cause removed to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">power to consider correctness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12) , s. 73</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth),s. 25(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">judiciary act 1903 (cth),ss. 40, 42.  practice costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">intervention by attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.19">cited from="[1991] HCA 14">judiciary act 1903(cth),s. 78a(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 27">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 27">notice of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 27">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 27">assessment challenged in proceedings other than appeal or review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 27">whether assessment duly made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 27">conclusiveness of notice of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 27">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 6 (1) "assessment", 175, 177 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">no-liability companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">agreement to take new shares on allotment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">whether right to sue for outstanding moneys</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">the companies acts, 1961 to 1964 (q.), s. 320.  practice (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">applications for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">leave to defend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">issue of law only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">rules of the supreme court (q.), o. 18 r. 1.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">powers on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">appeal from refusal of primary judge to grant leave to enter summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">issue of law only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">full argument on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">decision to allow appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">industrial arbitration (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">coal mining</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">local reference board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">quorum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">less than required number of members present</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">defence (transitional provisions) act 1946-1947 (no. 77 of 1946</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">no. 78 of 1947)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">national security (coal mining industry employment) regulations (s.r. 1941 no. 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 10">1948 no. 45), regs. 12, 13, 17.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">when summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) may be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether order for summary dismissal under s 31a is interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether leave to appeal should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether a further opportunity to amend a further amended statement of claim should be allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">consideration of interests of justice  held: leave to appeal necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">application for leave dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">extent of jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal under s 55(1)(a) of the freedom of information act 1982 (cth) to review decisions or deemed decisions upon requests for access to documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">requests made to a university incorporated under a state act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">where respondent is not an agency within the meaning of s 4(1) of the freedom of information act 1982 (cth)  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">allegation of apprehended bias against primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the proceedings practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether a judgment for one party against another under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) is interlocutory within the meaning of s 24(1a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether, absent an order giving leave to appeal, a purported appeal should be dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the court by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1969">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1969">pleading s</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1969">motion to strike out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1969">both parties having measure of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1969">no order as to costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 146">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 146">judicial review of decision not to remit additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 146">summary dismissal on basis that proceeding had no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 146">whether judgment interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 146">hearing as if on an appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 146">whether invalid decision not to remit additional tax invalidates assessment of primary tax contained in same notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 146">held no</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 117" id="cs0">42 In the carefully reasoned judgment of Rares J in Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2009] FCAFC 73 his Honour expressed the opinion that a judgment or order under s 31A(2) that determines that an applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting a proceeding is interlocutory (at [101]). His Honour carefully reviewed the recent authorities on the question including Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd , White Industries , Berowra Holdings Pty Limited v Gordon [2006] HCA 32 ; (2006) 225 CLR 364 , Simundic v University of Newcastle [2007] FCAFC 144 , Zoia , Re Luck , Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 444 , Pham v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCAFC 179 , Owners of The Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Company Inc [1994] HCA 54 ; (1994) 181 CLR 404 , Dent v Australian Electoral Commissioner ; [2008] FCAFC 111 ; (2008) 249 ALR 523 , Wills v Australian Broadcasting Corporation , Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2008] FCA 991 and Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567 ; [2009] 72 ACSR 264. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 73" id="cs1">110 In Jefferson Ford 167 FCR at 407-408 [128] Gordon J construed the word "may" in s 31A(1) and (2) as being used in its empowering sense, not in a discretionary sense. Her Honour demonstrated in that part of her reasons that once the moving party on a motion under s 31A had established that the other party had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting or defending the claim or proceedings, the Court had to give the moving party the remedy it sought as provided in s 31A. In other words, once the Court had reached such a finding, the moving party was entitled to judgment in accordance with it. On the other hand, in Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2008] FCA 991 at [81] , Graham J held that the word "may" in s 31A confers a discretion: see too Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567 at [46] - [47] per Besanko J. It is not necessary to reach a final view on this issue in order to deal with this matter.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1969" id="cs2">I will not discuss the authorities in which s 31A has been considered. The emphasis on the word "no" reminds us that "a cautious approach" should be taken to the exercise of the Court's power under s 31A: cf Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2008] FCA 991 at [81] per Graham J.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 146" id="cs3">1 This is an appeal, or an application for leave to appeal, from an order of the Court made on 1 July 2008 that there be judgment for the respondent against the appellant in relation to the whole of the proceeding. The order gave effect to the primary judge's opinion ( Bonnell v Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2008] FCA 991 at [95] ) that the appellant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting claims for relief 1 and 2 in his amended application (see [10] below): see subs 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ('the Federal Court Act').</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 33 Exercise of powers and duties</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 16 Court divided in opinion</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l5">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l6">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 166 Assessment</title>
<title id="l7">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 170 Amendment of assessments</title>
<title id="l8">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 173 Amended assessment to be an assessment</title>
<title id="l9">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 174 Notice of assessment</title>
<title id="l10">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 175 Validity of assessment</title>
<title id="l11">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177 Evidence</title>
<title id="l12">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l13">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l15">MIGRATION LITIGATION REFORM ACT 2005 NO. 137, 2005 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.11  telecommunications act 1975 , s.43a  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 740">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 740">application for extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 740">consideration of the explanation for the delay and the merits of the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 740">importance of the merits of the appeal downgraded in recent times</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 740">if appeal conspicuously devoid of merit application for extension likely to be rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 740">an appeal under s 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth) must identify with precision a pure question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 740">application refused because notice of appeal did not identify a question of law but only took issue with the tribunal's assessment of the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 980">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 980">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 980">whether there is a reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 980">merits of substantive application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 980">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 980">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 980">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 743">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 743">application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 743">whether questions to be raised on appeal are questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 743">whether grounds of appeal as articulated in the amended draft notice of appeal disclose an arguable case or whether they are so devoid of merit as to render prosecution of the appeal pointless.    held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 743">leave be granted to file and serve notice of appeal out of time.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 740" id="cs0">In more recent times, the importance to be attached to the merits of the substantive proceedings has been downgraded somewhat as a criterion to be taken into account: see Hua-Aus Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 743 at [12] per Edmonds J. In Culley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2008] FCA 1784 (" Culley "), Jessup J held (at [5]) that:

 ... the court should be slow to reject an application for an extension of time under s 44(2A) of the AAT Act, ..., for no reason other than that the appeal, if prosecuted, would be unlikely --- even very unlikely --- to succeed.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 980" id="cs1">It is not necessary, or appropriate, to consider the merits of the substantive application in detail. Only "the most cursory examination of the merits to the proposed proceedings" is appropriate: Culley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2008] FCA 1784 at [6] .
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 743" id="cs2">More recently, however, the importance to be attached to the merits of the appeal has, arguably, been downgraded in its ranking among the criteria to be taken into account by the court in exercising its discretion as to whether or not an extension of time should be granted. For example, in Culley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2008] FCA 1784 at [5] , Jessup J observed:
 A party to a proceeding in the Tribunal has an appeal as of right on a question of law. Such an appeal is in the nature of a new proceeding in the original jurisdiction of the court. It is unnecessary for an applicant in such an appeal to have grounds of any particular strength or intrinsic merit (although I recognise, of course, the relevance of s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) in these, as in all other, original proceedings). For this reason (and perhaps the more so because of the availability of s 31A) , I consider that the court should be slow to reject an application for an extension of time under s 44(2A) of the AAT Act, where otherwise the principles in Hunter are appropriately satisfied, for no reason other than that the appeal, if prosecuted, would be unlikely --- even very unlikely --- to succeed. I note that this was effectively the approach taken by the court in Mustafa v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink [2000] FCA 1897 and in Wiegand v Comcare Australia [2005] FCA 1904. I consider that such an approach would be consistent with that taken by Fitzgerald J in Lucic [ v Nolan (1982) 45 ALR 411] and, because his Honour followed Lucic , by Wilcox J in Hunter .

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 154" id="cs3">The substantial part of the respondents' resistance to the present application was their submission that the proposed appeal, as foreshadowed by the applicant, would be bound to fail. The approach which the court should take to a submission of that kind, in my view, is that to which I referred in Culley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2008] FCA 1784 , at pars [5]-[6]. Culley arose under s 44(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the AAT Act"), but the terms thereof are relevantly indistinguishable from those of s 46(2) of the Act. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 11 Manner of making applications</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 206F ASIC's power of disqualification</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS (ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER) ACT 2006 (NO. 124, 2006) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">INFORMATION ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1576">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1576">application for declaration that assessments are not proper assessments and invalid on grounds that the commissioner failed to turn his mind to certain factual matters and had regard to information that he should not have considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1576">the validity and due making of an assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1576">ss 175 and 177 of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1576">motion for summary judgment under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1576">no allegation commissioner participated in any alleged illegal activity or was aware of any alleged illegal activity  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1576">application be dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1516">practice and procedure: application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1516">whether application for leave to appeal should be heard before a full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1452">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1452">application to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1452">need for court to be " satisfied "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1452">counter-claim, set-off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1452">could not have been set up as a matter of law in the action or proceeding in which judgment or order obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1452">application allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">application to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">motion seeking trial with jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">no entitlement to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">normal mode of trial without jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">no substantial reason to depart from normal mode of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">commissioner of taxation v futuris corporation limited  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">review and appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">judiciary act 1903 (cth) ("the judiciary act "), s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">appellant commissioner issued amended assessments of income tax to respondent taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">taxpayer alleged commissioner deliberately "double counted" amounts of assessable income -taxpayer sought judicial review in federal court under s 39b of the judiciary act while "appeal" pending under pt ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth) ("the administration act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">relationship between constitution and proceedings under pt ivc of the administration act and s 39b of the judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">scope of issues for determination in s 39b proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">relevance of availability of remedy in pt ivc proceeding to discretion to grant relief in s 39b proceeding.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">validity of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">finding of full court that commissioner failed to exercise bona fide the power of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) ("the act"), s 175 provided that failure to comply with provisions of the act did not affect validity of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">whether deliberate maladministration manifests jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">whether "double counting" manifested jurisdictional error where amended assessment issued on footing that compensatory adjustment could be made under s 177f(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">whether amended assessment "tentative" or "provisional"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">meaning of " bona fide "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">whether other grounds for judicial review of amended assessment relied on by the taxpayer and available in the proceedings.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">validity of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">section 177(1) of the act provided for production of notices of assessment to be conclusive evidence of certain matters except in pt ivc proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">application of s 177(1) to proceedings under s 39b of the judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">whether s 177(1) a privative clause subject to " hickman principle"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">relevance of deputy commissioner of taxation v richard walter pty ltd [1995] hca 23 ; (1995) 183 clr 168.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">criteria for valid law with respect to taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">absence of arbitrariness and susceptibility to judicial scrutiny</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">role of judicial remedies under s 75(v) of the constitution and s 39b of the judiciary act in upholding constitutional design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">discretionary character of such remedies derived from the constitution .  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.29">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">review and appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.30">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">judicial review in federal court under the judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.31">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">discretionary character of such review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.32">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">availability of proceedings under pt ivc of the administration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.33">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">institution of proceedings under pt ivc of the administration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.34">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">relevance of that step to exercise of discretion to decide proceedings under the judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.35">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">whether proceedings under s 39b should be dismissed in exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.36">cited from="[2008] HCA 32">whether necessary and appropriate to consider application of ss 175 and 177 of the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1004">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1004">application to set aside a bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1004">applicant claimed to have a set-off, counter-claim or cross demand against former solicitors for professional negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1004">no prima facie case or fair chance of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1004">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">szfde v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed a decision refusing the appellants' application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the appellants did not attend the tribunal hearing as a result of fraudulent advice given by a purported registered migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether there was fraud "by" or "on" the tribunal.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">inquisitorial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">distinction between tribunal process and inter partes litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether fraud practised by an agent upon the applicants for a protection visa subverted the operation of div 4 of pt 7 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether this fraud led to the jurisdiction of the tribunal remaining constructively unexercised.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">availability of constitutional writs in cases of fraud.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">application to refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">invitation to attend oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">fraudulent advice from migration agent that tribunal would refuse application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">advice that applicant should not attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">applicant dissuaded by agent's fraud from attending</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">whether procedural unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">effect of statutory provisions relating to invitation to appear and codification of natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">whether apparent consent to non-appearance vitiated by fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 142">whether tribunal decision induced or affected by fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">guss v johnstone  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">bankruptcy notice served on debtor after creditor obtained order for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">debtor claimed counter-claim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding amount of order for costs being a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand that he could not have set up in the proceedings in which the order for costs was obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">debtor applying to the court for order setting aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">whether court satisfied that debtor had such a counter-claim, set-off or cross demand before expiration of time fixed for compliance with requirements of bankruptcy notice.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">appeal against orders of primary judge that court not satisfied that debtor has a relevant counter-claim, set-off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">issues to be determined by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 26">utility of appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1410">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1410">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1410">whether debtor could have set up counter claim in proceedings in which judgment obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1410">no direct jurisdiction in federal court but proceedings if commenced in high court remitted to federal court and then consolidated would have resulted in cross claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1410">whether procedural difficulties sufficient to establish that debtor could not have set up the counter claim.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">whether within power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">whether examinable by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">planning act 1979 (n.t.), s. 4(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">planning regulations (n.t.), reg. 5, sch. 3.  northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">whether representative of crown in territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 74">northern territory (self-government) act 1978 (cth), ss. 31 , 32 , 51 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">appeal against orders to extend time for compliance with bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">power of court to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">nature of "counterclaim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">claim sounding in money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">personal claim against creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">act of bankruptcy.  bankruptcy act, 1966 s.40(1)(g) ; s. 41 (6a), s. 41 (7).  bankruptcy (amendment) act 1980  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">debtor purporting to establish counterclaim, set-off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">nature of such counterclaim, set-off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">debtor claiming declaration of trust or charge against creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">whether personal claim against creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">whether debtor committed act of bankruptcy notwithstanding existence of action against creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 40(1)(g) , 41 (7).  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">time for compliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">extension of time for compliance with bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">power of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 33(1)(c) , 41 (6a). on 21st may, 1980, at the request of the appellant a bankruptcy notice issued addressed to the respondent, which was served on him on 2nd june, 1980. the time fixed for compliance with the notice expired on 17th june, 1980. on 13th june, 1980, the respondent filed an affidavit alleging that he had a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand against the appellant. he set out the facts supporting his contention, making out a prima facie case that the appellant held certain land in trust for herself and the respondent. he annexed to his affidavit the statement of claim and statement of defence in an action commenced by him in the equity division of the supreme court of new south wales against the appellant in which he sought a declaration of trust or an equitable charge over the land.  in proceedings before mcgregor j. to decide whether the court was satisfied that the respondent had "a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand equal to or exceeding the amount of the judgment debt being a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand that he could not have set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment . . . was obtained", his honour found that the respondent had filed an affidavit as referred to in s. 41(7) of the bankruptcy act 1966 but his honour considered that it was more appropriate to await the outcome of the supreme court proceedings rather than attempt to resolve the issues raised in the affidavit. he therefore extended the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice on terms (as set out in the judgment of deane and lockhart jj.). he subsequently purported to extend the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice by the respondent on two further occasions.  on appeal against the judgment and orders of mcgregor j.,  held: (1) per deane and lockhart jj.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">(a) once a bankruptcy notice has been served on a debtor and an affidavit has been filed purportedly showing that the debtor has a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand of the type mentioned in s. 40(1)(g) of the act, the time for compliance with the notice is automatically extended until the court determines whether the affidavit does establish that the debtor has such a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand. no order of the court is required to extend the time limited for compliance with the bankruptcy notice prior to the determination of this issue. (b) no general inherent power could be implied by which the court could extend the time for compliance with the requirements of a bankruptcy notice because: (i) such a power was expressly excluded from the general powers conferred by s. 33(1)(c) of the act; (ii) by s. 41(6a) in certain specified circumstances the court has express power to extend this time limit.  (2) per deane and lockhart jj.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">(a) any counterclaim, set-offs or cross demand within s. 40(1)(g) of the act must be a claim for a money sum, whether liquidated or unliquidated, or for the immediate delivery of a specific chattel of ascertainable value. re jocumsen (1929), 1 abc 82 ; vogwell v. vogwell (1939), 11 abc 83 ; re a bankruptcy notice, (1934) 1 ch 431 ; re a debtor, (1958) 1 ch 81 , referred to.  (3) per deane and lockhart jj.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.22">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">the present cross-claim as deposed to in the affidavits of the respondent was not for a money sum or the delivery of a specific chattel; it could therefore not be a "counter-claim, set-off or cross demand" within s. 40(1)(g).  (4) per fisher j.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.23">cited from="[1981] FCA 46">the facts deposed to by the respondent did not establish that the appellant was under any personal liability to the respondent by reason of his claim. therefore it was not established that the counterclaim, set-off or cross demand was in the same right as the personal claim of the appellant upon which the bankruptcy notice was based, being a judgment debt for money lent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">what constitutes an affidavit under sub-s. 41 (7)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">principles applicable to s. 41 (7) applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">requirements to satisfy the court that the debtor has the requisite counter-claim, set-off or cross demand.  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) ss. 30 ; 33 (1) (c), (2) (c); 40 (1) (g), 41 (7)  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">affidavit of debtor alleging counterclaim, set-off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">sufficiency of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">requirements of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">statutory extension of time for complying with bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 78">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 30 , 33 (1) (c), (2) (c), 40 (1) (g), 41 (7). on 14th september, 1979, the commercial banking company of sydney ltd. ("the respondent") signed judgment against the applicant in the district court of new south wales in the sum of $8,524.14. on 29th february, 1980, the deputy registrar issued a bankruptcy notice directed to the applicant. within the time limited the applicant filed an affidavit purporting to show that he had a counterclaim, set-off or cross demand within the meaning of s. 40 (1) (g) of the bankruptcy act 1966 ("the act"). by operation of the statute the filing of a sufficient affidavit had the effect of extending the time within which the debtor had to comply with the bankruptcy notice (s. 41 (7)). as a preliminary issue the court was asked to determine whether the affidavit filed was an affidavit of the kind referred to in s. 41 (7) of the act.  held: (1) the precise requirements of any affidavit purporting to come within the provisions of s. 40 (1) (g) and s. 41 (7) are not capable of definitive formulation and must depend upon the particular facts and circumstances of the case.  re a debtor; ex parte the debtor v. tossoun, (1963) 1 wlr 51 , referred to with approval.  (2) the affidavit must show that the debtor has a prima facie case by way of counterclaim, set-off or cross demand which equals or exceeds the cross demand and which case could not have been set up in the action or proceeding in which the judgment or order was obtained.  ebert v. union trustee company of australia ltd. [1960] hca 50 ; (1960), 104 clr 346 , followed.  (3) when, as here, the affidavit did not reveal why the alleged counterclaim, set-off or cross demand could not have been set up in the original court proceedings, such affidavit did not comply with the act, with the result that there had been no deemed extension of time to comply with the requirements of the bankruptcy notice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">"counter-claim, set-off, or cross demand": what constitutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">evidence sufficient to satisfy court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">judgment creditor entitled to judgment in own right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">cross demand in representative capacity sought to be set up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">necessity for cross demand to be in same right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1960] HCA 50">bankruptcy act 1924. 1958 (cth), s. 52 (j).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 319">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 319">bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 319">whether debtors' cross claim constitutes prima facie case equal to or exceeding judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 319">whether cross claim could have been set up in proceeding which judgment obtained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 319">whether re ling; ex parte ling v commonwealth [1995] fca 1410 ; (1995) 58 fcr 129 should be followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 319">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), s40(1)(g).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 319" id="cs0">Re Ling has also been cited with approval and applied by Jacobson J in Tsavara v Nufero Pty Ltd [2003] FCA 1152 at [35] ; by Rares J in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Conley [2006] FCA 1011 at [16] ; and by Flick J in Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (no 2) [2008] FCA 1985 at [65] and Massih v Esber [2008] FCA 1452 at [29] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1034" id="cs1">The primary judge delivered judgment on 24 December 2008 in which he concluded that the judgment of the District Court was a final judgment; the applicant had no counter-claim, set-off or cross-demand which could not have been raised in the District Court proceedings; that there was no basis for the applicant's allegation that the respondent had not raised any cross-claim because of misleading conduct on the part of the respondent's solicitor; and that the Court did not retain a discretion to set aside a Bankruptcy Notice if it considered that it was 'just' to do so if s 40(1)(g) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ('the Act') had not been satisfied. The primary judge accordingly dismissed the application: see Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2008] FCA 1985. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 40 Acts of bankruptcy</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 41 Bankruptcy notices</title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 55J Establishment of the Australian Government Solicitor</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l6">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l7">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8AAZC Establishment of RBAs</title>
<title id="l8">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8AAZD Allocation of tax debts to RBAs</title>
<title id="l9">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8AAZF General interest charge on RBA deficit debt</title>
<title id="l10">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 8AAZH Liability for RBA deficit debt</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l12">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l13">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 106 Power of Commission to declare contracts void or varied</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">jarratt v commissioner of police for new south wales  police</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">tenure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">dismissal from office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">applicant was deputy commissioner of police and a member of the senior executive service under part 5 of the police act 1990 (nsw) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">commissioner of police recommended to governor that the applicant be dismissed from office pursuant to the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">governor dismissed applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">applicant afforded no hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether dismissal from office invalid as breaching requirements of natural justice.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">prerogatives of the crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">prerogative to dismiss crown servants at pleasure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether implied term of contract of employment of crown servant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether compatible with modern-day conditions of public service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether compatible with statutory regime for employment of senior police officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether compatible with obligation to accord natural justice.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">provision for governor to dismiss senior police officer "at any time" on advice of commissioner of police</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether the words "at any time" import into the statute the crown's right to dismiss crown servants at pleasure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether obligation to accord natural justice implicitly excluded.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">where employment contract entered into pursuant to statutory provision following appointment to office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">where dismissal from office necessarily resulted in termination of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">whether award of damages may be made for repudiation resulting from invalid exercise of statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 50">relevance of statutory scheme for compensation for dismissal from office.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1535">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1535">revocability of decision to grant an application by a serving member of the defence force to resign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1535">whether s 33(3) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) (as applied to delegated legislation by s 46(1)(a) of that act) enables revocation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether board of australian crime commission had power to amend an authorisation and determination for a special investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether a new determination required under s 7c  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">acts interpretation act 190,1 s 33(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">meaning of "instrument"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether application limited to instruments of a legislative character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether contrary intention precluded reliance on s 33(3)  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth), s 30(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1475">whether abrogated privilege against self-incrimination in relation to foreign offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">criminal law (s.a.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">sexual offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">indefinite detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">release on licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">offender at large on expiration of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">subsequent apprehension on warrant and return to detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">whether issue of warrant justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">criminal law consolidation act 1935 (s.a.) , s. 77a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">correctional services act 1982 (s.a.), s. 64.  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">governor in council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">indefinitely detained sexual offender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">power to release on licence on recommendation of parole board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">hearing by board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">offender and counsel present</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">recommendation of release on licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">consideration by cabinet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">failure of governor in council to act on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">right to hearing by governor in council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">criminal law consolidation act 1935 (s.a.), s. 77a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">correctional services act 1982 (s.a.), s. 64.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">application for declaration that minister for primary industry had not validly prohibited taking of scallops from area off queensland coast</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">power conferred on minister to prohibit fishing with respect to specified class of fish "by notice published in the gazette"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">taking of prawns and shrimps prohibited by such a notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">original notice purportedly varied by further notice published subsequent to amendment to relevant section</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">whether power conferred "power to make an instrument such that s.33 of the acts interpretation act applicable to enable amendment, variation and revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">characterization of power conferred upon minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">whether implied power to amend or revoke</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">effect of transitional provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">prohibition valid.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">proper order for costs of interlocutory application when successful party on interlocutory application ultimately unsuccessful.  fisheries act 1952 ss.4, 5b, 9, 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d)  acts interpretation act 1901 (com) s.33  fishing legislation amendment act 1984 sub-s.10(3)  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">whether a statutory power of minister to prohibit type of fishing by notice in the gazette is a power "to make . . . or issue an instrument"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">whether a power to amend or revoke such prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">fisheries act 1952 (cth), ss 4, 5b, 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), 9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">fishing legislation amendment act 1984 (cth), s 10(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 33.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1984] FCA 368">proper orders where party successful in interlocutory proceedings but fails in principal application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">false representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">history, standard and sponsorship of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">labels attached to goods by wholesaler</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">time of representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">whether representation by wholesaler made when goods displayed by or purchased from retailer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">whether prosecution commenced out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">representation concerning non-existent standard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">consent of minister or authorised person to prosecution required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 195">whether power to consent can be delegated to a holder of an office.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">warehouse licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">power to revoke licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">inherent or implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether collector had power to revoke warehouse licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">customs act 1901 (cth.), s. 78</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth.), s. 33(3).  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">jurisdiction of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether jurisdiction to review decision made without power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a).  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">whether jurisdiction to review decision made without power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a).  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">"made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">meaning of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.), ss. 3(3) , 25 (1)(a). this was an appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal ("the tribunal") setting aside a decision of the collector of customs, new south wales, to revoke a private warehouse licence issued to the respondent subject to the provisions of the customs act 1901 (cth.), the regulations made thereunder and subject to conditions specified on the back of the written licence. the tribunal held that it possessed jurisdiction and made an order setting aside the purported revocation on the ground that the power of revocation which the collector purported to exercise did not exist.  held: per bowen c.j. and smithers j., deane j. dissenting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1979] FCA 21">the appeal should be dismissed because: (1) the phrase "made in the exercise of powers conferred by that enactment" in s. 25(1)(a) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth.) properly construed means in purported exercise of powers conferred by the enactment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">trade and commerce with other countries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">law prohibiting exportation of specified materials without minister's approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">matters considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">effect of extraction of materials upon environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51 (i.) customs act 1901-1973 (cth), s. 112*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">environment protection (impact of proposals) act 1974-1975 (cth), ss. 5,8,9, 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">customs (prohibited exports) regulations, reg. 9.   * section 112 of the customs act 1901-1973 (cth) provides: "(1) the governor-general may, by regulation, prohibit the exportation of goods from australia. (2) the power conferred by the last preceding sub-section may be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1976] HCA 20">(a) by prohibiting the exportation of goods absolutely; (b) by prohibiting the exportation of goods to a specified place; or (c) by prohibiting the exportation of goods unless prescribed conditions are complied with ... "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">aerial navigation (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">air service operations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">inter-state charter services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">licence therefor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">refused on ground unrelated to safety of operations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">permission to import aircraft for proposed service refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">air navigation regulations (cth), regs. 197 (1), 199 (2).*  customs (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">prohibited imports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">prohibition on importation of aircraft</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">relaxation of prohibition with permission of director-general of civil aviation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">discretion of director-general to relax prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">whether mandamus lies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">matters relevant thereto</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">governmental policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">customs (prohibited imports) regulations (cth), reg. 4 (2), 3rd schedule, item 1**.  prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">public official</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">order to perform duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">circumstances in which mandamus will issue.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">freedom of inter-state trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.22">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">aircraft required for operation of inter-state air service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.23">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">refusal of permission to import aircraft</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.24">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">whether freedom impaired</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.25">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 92.  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.26">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">departmental head</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.27">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">discretion given by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.28">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">governmental policy relevance to exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.29">cited from="[1965] HCA 27">relation between minister and departmental head.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">delegate of the first respondent exercised discretion under s 98(3) of the national health act 1953 (cth) to cancel the approval of the third respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">delegate subsequently "remade" her decision and "reinstated" the approval on the basis that the third respondent may not have been afforded procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">whether third respondent had in fact been denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">delegate aware that third respondent had received offer to purchase her approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">whether procedural fairness required the delegate to provide the third respondent with a further opportunity to be heard in light of this information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">third respondent had been sentenced to three years' imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">whether inference should be drawn that the delegate was aware of this sentence at the time the original decision was made administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">whether the delegate had the power to "remake" the original decision under s 33(3) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">whether power to cancel an approval under s 98(3) of the national health act constituted a power to "make, grant or issue any instrument" for the purposes of s 33(3) of the acts interpretation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">whether the provisions of the national health act evince a sufficient contrary intention to exclude the operation of s 33(3)  held: appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">third respondent was not denied procedural fairness by the delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">original decision by the delegate to cancel the third respondent's approval was valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 67">delegate did not have the power under s 33(3) of the acts interpretation act to remake the decision and reinstate the approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 63">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 63">whether the delegate's power to cancel the pharmacist's approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits under s 98(3) of the national health act 1953 (cth) was exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 63">nature of the statutory regime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 63">whether there was procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 63">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 63">distinction between matter which might constitute irrelevant or relevant consideration and factual matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 63">relevance of s 33(3) of the acts interpretation act 1901 .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 67" id="cs0">60 This argument fails. The power in s 98(3) is expressed as a power to cancel an approval in the exercise of a discretion. It is not in terms a discretion to make, grant or issue an instrument, being the notice. A notice of the cancellation in writing is required to be given to the pharmacist by s 98(3). The notice is made necessary, doubtless, so that the pharmacist will be informed of the fact that his or her approval has been cancelled. It is the mode prescribed by s 98(3) of communicating the making of the decision to exercise the discretion to cancel. Importantly, s 105AB(8A) of the Health Act gives a pharmacist a right to apply to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of the Secretary under s 98(3) to revoke an approval. That suggests that the relevant exercise of power under s 98(3) is one of cancellation not a power to make an instrument or issue a notice: Nicholson-Brown v Jennings [2007] FCA 634 ; (2007) 162 FCR 337 at 349 [27] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 63" id="cs1">Given this conclusion, it is probably unnecessary to consider the alternative basis on which the power to decide not to cancel exercised on 26 May 2009 is said to have arisen, namely by operation of s 33(3) of the Acts Interpretation Act which would require, as I understood the submission, the provision conferring power to cancel an approval as also conferring a power exercisable from time to time to rescind or revoke the cancellation. Having regard to the nature of the power and the statutory scheme requiring, in some circumstances, a procedure to be followed leading to a recommendation by the Authority before an approval is given, I would have thought that the NH Act evinced an intention that the cancellation power, once exercised, could not be exercised again to rescind or revoke the cancellation with the practical and legal consequence of creating an approval. In addition, I doubt that the power conferred by s 98(3) of the NH Act is a power of the type addressed by s 33(3) to "make, grant or issue any instrument" even though notice of the cancellation must be given in writing. It is simply a decision which must be evidenced in writing: Laurence v Chief of Navy [2004] FCA 1535 ; (2004) 139 FCR 555. The subsection concerns a power to cancel an approval and not a power to make, grant or issue any instrument: Nicholson-Brown v Jennings [2007] FCA 634 ; (2007) 162 FCR 337 at [27] . Other challenges to 26 May 2006 decision and decisions of 8 July and 17 August 2009
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER HERITAGE PROTECTION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 4 Exercise of certain powers between passing and commencing of Act</title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 33 Exercise of powers and duties</title>
<title id="l5">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 46 Construction of instruments</title>
<title id="l6">ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER HERITAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT 2006 (NO. 152, 2006) </title>
<title id="l7">ABORIGINAL HERITAGE ACT 2006 </title>
<title id="l8">PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION ACT 2004 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">corporations law 2001, part 5.4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">winding up in insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">statutory demand pertaining to disputed judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">effect of failure to lodge application to set aside within prescribed time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">no abuse of process for creditor to exploit rebuttable presumption of insolvency to recover disputed debt under current statutory scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">nd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">action for wrongful dismissal against university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">information for criminal defamation by plaintiff against officer of university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">predominant purpose of informant to secure reinstatement or favourable settlement of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">whether abuse of process.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459F When company taken to fail to comply with statutory demand</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459G Company may apply</title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>