Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">payments by the lutheran church to indigenous workers at below-award wages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">state of queensland calculated and paid grants for such below-award wages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 162">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">nbgm v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">application for permanent protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">statute requiring minister to be satisfied australia owes protection obligations to the applicant under the convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">applicant previously granted temporary protection visa for a specified period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">whether previous grant of temporary protection visa entitles applicant on application for a new visa to a presumption of being owed protection obligations under the convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">construction of migration act 1958 (cth), s 36</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 54">construction of the convention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">batistatos v roads and traffic authority of new south wales  batistatos v newcastle city council  abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">proceedings commenced in 1994 in respect of causes of action which accrued in 1965</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant suffered quadriplegia and other injuries in motor accident allegedly caused by the negligence of, and nuisance created by, the respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant born mentally retarded and later orphaned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">applications brought by respondents for summary dismissal or permanent stay for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether, due to the effluxion of time since the causes of action accrued, a fair trial was not possible for the respondents.  abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">factors to be considered in determining whether delay precludes the conduct of a fair trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether actions commenced by appellant untenable or futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether actions commenced by appellant present real question to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">sufficiency of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of fundamental right to bring legal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of summarily denying right to a trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of appellant's severely disabled condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of the extent of the investigations made by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of the disparity in the economic resources of the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relevance of fact that the 30 year ultimate limitation bar had not yet descended.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant born mentally disabled and suffered quadriplegia in the accident out of which these proceedings arose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">appellant's causes of action not subject to 6 year limitation period which would otherwise have been imposed by the limitation act 1969 (nsw) by reason of the appellant's disabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">actions commenced within 30 year ultimate limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether limitation act 1969 (nsw) precludes court from summarily dismissing or permanently staying proceedings for abuse of process when actions commenced before expiry of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether exercise of power to dismiss or stay in such circumstances is exceptional and requires proof of oppressive or contumelious conduct on the part of the plaintiff.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">powers of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether supplementary power of supreme court of new south wales properly described as inherent or implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">distinction between inherent powers and implied powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">basis from which the state supreme court derives its jurisdiction to summarily dismiss or permanently stay proceedings.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">powers of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.28">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.29">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.30">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">whether rules of court are exhaustive of the circumstances in which the supreme court can dismiss or stay proceedings for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.31">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">weight to be given to the relevant legislative context in exercising discretion to dismiss or stay proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.32">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">where both rules of court and supplementary jurisdiction empower supreme court to stay or dismiss proceedings for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.33">cited from="[2006] HCA 27">relationship between supplementary jurisdiction and rules of court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 495">discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 495">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 495">employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 495">distinction "based on" race</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 495">whether grants by the government to church-run missions were "acts" under the racial discrimination act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 495">whether wages paid less than awards was unlawful racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">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="cp5.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1715" id="cs0">1 This afternoon the parties attended an urgent directions hearing in this matter before me. The background to this directions hearing was as follows:

• On 28 September 2006 I ordered that the applications filed in respect of QUD279 of 2004 and QUD389 of 2005 be permanently stayed, except to the extent that the applicants were claiming that the respondent discriminated against each of them pursuant to s 9 and s 15 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) through the payment by the respondent to any manifestation of the Christian Brethren, including the Christian Brethren of Australia Inc of grants for the payment of the applicants' wages that were based on race and resulted in the applicants receiving wages which were at a rate less than that to which they were entitled ( Douglas v State of Queensland [2006] FCA 1288). • I did not however order a permanent stay of such of the applicants' claims as related to discrimination by the respondent against the applicants in their 'direct' employment with the respondent between 1975 and 1986. Accordingly, a trial date was fixed in respect of that part of the claim in QUD389 of 2005, being 14-16 February 2007 in Mt Isa, and I ordered the applicant to file an amended statement of claim by 30 November 2006. • The applicants sought leave to appeal from the decision in [2006] FCA 1288. On 5 December 2006 Greenwood J granted leave to appeal in relation to the claim made by the applicants in QUD279 of 2004 and QUD389 of 2005 that the respondent discriminated against each of them in contravention of s 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) through the payment by the respondent to any manifestation of the Christian Brethren Church including the Christian Brethren of Australia Inc of grants for the payment of the applicants' wages that were based on race and resulted in the applicants receiving wages which were at a rate less than that to which they were entitled ( Foster v State of Queensland [2006] FCA 1680). I understand that the appeal to the Full Court in this matter will not be heard before the February 2007 Full Court sittings at the earliest. • Accordingly, I ordered the parties to attend a directions hearing at 4.30 pm this afternoon to make submissions in relation to whether the trial currently listed before me to be heard in Mt Isa on 14-16 February 2007 should proceed.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 46 Orders and commissions for examination of witnesses</title>
<title id="l3">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l4">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 9 Racial discrimination to be unlawful</title>
<title id="l5">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 15 Employment</title>
<title id="l6">HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">reinstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">whether court satisfied that it is just that the company's registration be reinstated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">reinstatement sought for purposes of proceedings alleging contraventions of part iv of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">relevance of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">effect of reinstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">order conditional on payment of liquidator's costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601AA Deregistration--voluntary</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601AH Reinstatement</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Declarations of right</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">COMPETITION POLICY REFORM (WESTERN AUSTRALIA) ACT 1996 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1212">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1212">resale price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1212">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1212">application for injunctions, declarations and pecuniary penalties arising out of the operation of a scheme whereby products were distributed through a network of sales representatives</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1212">penalties to be imposed for contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1212">factors to be considered in determining appropriate penalties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">advertisement dealing with the effects of environmental tobacco smoke found to be misleading and deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">question of relief to which respondent (the applicant at first instance) entitled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">no claim made other than for injunctive relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">injunctive relief granted by primary judge set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">whether applicant should be permitted to amend application to seek declaratory relief.  remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">whether power to grant declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">whether injunctive relief different from that granted by primary judge should be substituted therefor.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">disposal of costs at first instance and on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">whether costs should be ordered on indemnity basis.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">admission of fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">whether respondent should be given leave to rely on fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">finality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">evidence not evidence in existence at time of trial.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">validity or construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1993] FCA 83">whether appellant should be given leave to argue questions relating to the validity or construction of s.52 of the trade practices act 1974 upon the basis of decisions of the high court of australia in australian capital television pty. limited v. commonwealth of australia (no.2) [1992] hca 45 ; (1992) 108 alr 577 and nationwide news pty. limited v. wills [1992] hca 46 ; (1992) 108 alr 681.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">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="cp5.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">consent orders including undertakings about future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">undertaking extending beyond court's power to restrain conduct by injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 45a, 80 , 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 22 , 23 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">agreement between applicant and respondent on amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">object of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">whether other relevant contraventions are to be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">totality principle  compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">whether actual damages suffered by conduct of another person as a result of the contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">object of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 810">whether mitigation of losses.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">whether representations that "ugg boots" were made in australia published on certain websites contravene ss 52 , 53 (eb) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) and ss 18 , 29 (1)(g), (k) of the australian consumer law (schedule 2 to the competition and consumer act 2010 (cth))</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">pecuniary penalties, injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">declarations pursuant to s 21 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 695">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 375">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 375">contravention of s 65c of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 375">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">contravention of s 65c(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 372">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">a single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">the totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">relevance of previous contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">punishment and deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1382">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 515">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 515">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 515">sale by retailer of children's toys in contravention of fair trading (safety standards) (children's toys) regulations 2004 and of toys in contravention of permanent ban orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 515">declarations, cease trading injunction, corrective advertising, and destruction orders sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 515">consideration of terms of an appropriate relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 515">fair trading act 1999 , ss.33, 40, 44, 129a , 149a , 151a , 153 , 158 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 760">category no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 759">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">therapeutic goods act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">civil penalty proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">respondents found to have supplied and manufactured or aided and abetted in the supply and manufacture of counterfeit therapeutic goods and goods that have not been registered pursuant to therapeutic goods act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">pecuniary penalties imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">declarations of contravention made  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">effect of section 191 evidence act  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 597">applicant granted leave to proceed against company in liquidation on the condition that the applicant does not enforce an order for the payment of money by that respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 17">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 17">alleged price fixing arrangements made at overseas meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 17">accc and certain respondents jointly seek proposed declarations, injunctions and penalties on basis of agreed facts and admissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 17">whether jointly proposed penalties appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 17">no evidence of profits from contraventions, effect on market or loss caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 17">whether making of declarations should be deferred until after proceedings against continuing respondents completed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 17">proposed declarations do not mention continuing respondents directly or by necessary implication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">unfair practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">optometry services and sale of optical products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">fair trading act 1999 (vic), s 9 , s 12 , s 19 and part 11.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 714">industrial relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 714">unauthorized industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 714">breach of dispute resolution agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 714">appropriate penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 714">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 714">retrospective application of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">breach of s 170nc of the workplace relations act by union officials and union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">level of penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">appropriate penalty where union vicariously liable damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">where breach of s 45d of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">where interference with contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">no practical difference as to calculation of damages between s 45d count and tort count in instant circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 466">damages to be measured by loss of net revenue by contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">companies providing education consultancy services to overseas students</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">agreement between companies not to offer or accept discounted tuition fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">admission of contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">consent orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">agreed statements of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">no agreement as to pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">appropriateness of declaratory relief naming parties against whom proceedings still pending</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">declaratory relief deferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">allegation on agreed facts that natural person attempted to contravene competition code (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">contravention attempted not a contravention to which person would be a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">person acting on behalf of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 5">relevant factors.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">where union liable as an accessory under s 76(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">relevant factors in determining level of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">whether union's conduct in relation to contraventions of ss 45e(3) and 45ea constitutes same conduct for the purposes of imposing penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">consideration of nature, extent and impact of contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">consideration of deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 11">penalty determined</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 810" id="cs0">There is an additional case, not included in Table A involving the CFMEU, McDonald and Buchan where there was conduct in breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) which, the applicant submits, can be seen as in the nature of industrial action and relevant to the question of penalty. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 , Nicholson J penalised the CFMEU $50,000 in respect of two incidents at the Holiday Inn site, next to Burswood Casino. The incidents took place on 16 April 2004 and 4 November 2004. McDonald and Buchan were involved in a secondary boycott, preventing and hindering the supply of concrete to the site, both directly and through organising a picket line which acted as a physical barrier to prevent entry of concrete trucks and the concrete pump. McDonald engaged in this conduct on both dates. Buchan was engaged, in concert with McDonald, in the unlawful conduct on 16 April 2004, but not on 4 November 2004. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 695" id="cs1">49 Having regard to the reasoning of Nicholson J in Australia Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 at [6] , the declarations sought are appropriate because they:

(a) are an appropriate vehicle to record the Court's disapproval of the contravening conduct;

(b) serve to vindicate the applicant's claim that the respondent contravened the CCA and ACL;

(c) are of some assistance to the applicant in the future in carrying out the duties which are conferred upon it by the CCA and ACL;

(d) may inform consumers of the dangers arising from the respondent's contravening conduct; and

(e) may deter others from contravening the CCA and ACL.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 375" id="cs2">Finally, I consider that the declarations are appropriate: Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organics Inc (No 2) [1993] FCA 83 ; (1993) 41 FCR 89 at 100 and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd (2004) 207 ALR 329 at [21] --- [22]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1118 at [8] --- [9] and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 at [6] . They are an appropriate vehicle to record the Court's disapproval of the contravening conduct. They may deter other corporations from contravening the CCA. There is, however, in the circumstances of this case, a further reason for granting the declarations. In the absence of them, the contravening conduct would not otherwise be clearly identified and there is at least some public benefit in that contravening conduct being clearly identified. INJUNCTIONS
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 372" id="cs3">Finally, I consider that the declarations are appropriate: Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organics Inc (No 2) [1993] FCA 83 ; (1993) 41 FCR 89 at 100 and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd (2004) 207 ALR 329 at [21] --- [22]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v LG Electronics Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1118 at [8] --- [9] and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 at [6] . They are an appropriate vehicle to record the Court's disapproval of the contravening conduct. They may deter other corporations from contravening the CCA. There is, however, in the circumstances of this case, a further reason for granting the declarations. In the absence of them, the contravening conduct would not otherwise be clearly identified and there is at least some public benefit in that contravening conduct being clearly identified. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1382" id="cs4">In A  L Silvestri Pty Limited , Gyles J expressed perhaps a more expansive view as to the potential relevance of other unlawful conduct. Referring to a great many previous decisions, His Honour thus concluded:

 [13] A number of findings involving unlawful behaviour by officials related to the CFMEU have been made in recent years, in addition to the other case involving Lane (eg Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Coal  Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] FCA 1714 , (1999) 94 1R 231; Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Hamberger [2003] FCAFC 38 ; (2003) 127 FCR 309 ; Alfred v Walter Construction Group Ltd [2005] FCA 497 ; Martino v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union , Magistrates Court of Victoria (Industrial Division), 10 May 2006; Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union , District Court of New South Wales, 3 March 2004; Hadgkiss v Blevin [2004] FCA 697; [2004] FCA 917 ; Hadgkiss v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 524 ; (2007) 162 IR 385 ; Ponzio v B  P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 65 ; (2007) 158 FCR 543 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 ; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015 ; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FMCA 1873 ; and Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 ; (2007) 167 IR 320). Counsel for the CFMEU submits that only building industry cases are relevant, and then only those that involve the relevant divisional branch (the New South Wales Construction and General Divisional Branch), bearing in mind that the Union is an amalgamated federation ( Re Election for Office in the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union ; Ex parte Sutton [2002] FCA 971 ; (2002) 115 IR 345 at [23] ). I agree that the classes of case identified are the most relevant, but I do not agree that the other cases are irrelevant.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 515" id="cs5">Clearly, this litigation is in that class. It follows that declarations would not lack utility.

 44 See also ACCC v Advanced Medical Institute Pty Ltd (No 3), [10] ACCC v IMB Group Pty Ltd, [11] ACCC v Chen; [12] ACCC v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, [13] ACCC v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No.2), [14] Alinta Asset Management Pty Ltd v Essential Services Commission, [15] and Cousins v Merringtons Pty Ltd and Anor (No.2). [16] Further, in analogous cases, Cousins v SJS Imports Pty Ltd and Others [17] and Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Midas Trading (Australia) Pty Ltd, [18] Dodds-Streeton J and Habersberger J (respectively) granted declaratory relief similar to the declaratory relief sought in this case by the Director. 45 The Director submits, and I agree, that there are no relevant discretionary grounds for refusing to make declarations.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 760" id="cs6">The orders for compliance programs should be expressed with sufficient precision to enable a breach of the order to be ascertained and effectively punished: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Virgin Mobile Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2002] FCA 1548 however I accept that it is neither practicable nor useful to prescribe with particularity the content of such programs: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 759" id="cs7">The orders for compliance programs should be expressed with sufficient precision to enable a breach of the order to be ascertained and effectively punished, however I accept that it is neither practicable nor useful to prescribe with particularity the content of such programs: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 597" id="cs8">In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 at [6] Nicholson J listed a number of ways in which that support might be manifested by declarations sought including the matters referred to in [23] above. In addition his Honour referred to the deterrent effect of declarations and that they may be of assistance in clarifying the law. Nicholson J's list was adopted by French J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 5 at [48] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 17" id="cs9">The Parties also jointly propose forms of declarations concerning the contraventions by AFPT Singapore and AIMS Australia of s 45(2)(a)(ii) and s 45(2)(b)(ii) of the TPA and the Codes. Section 21 of the Federal Court Act gives the Court power, in relation to a matter in which it has original jurisdiction, to make binding declarations of right. There has been recognition that declarations may be appropriate for a number of reasons in proceedings commenced by the Commission for contraventions of the TPA ( Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; [2007] ATPR 42-140 at [6] --- [7] per Nicholson J, adopted by French J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] ATPR 42-212 at [48]). Whether the declarations sought are appropriate depends on their terms and the circumstances of the particular case. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 141" id="cs10">There is, in my view, a more fundamental reason why the Court should not grant the relief sought --- the claims failed. During the course of argument, Counsel for the Applicant could not refer me to any authority or principle which would support the making of a declaration in circumstances where the claims had failed. After the hearing, the Applicant referred me to the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Tobacco Institute of Australia Limited v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc (No 2) [1993] FCA 83 ; (1993) 41 FCR 89 at 99-100 as authority for the proposition that the Court has power to make a declaration in a case brought by a member of the public provided that the person had an arguable case for an injunction notwithstanding that the member of the public had suffered no damage and the case was not one appropriate for injunctive relief. In Australian Competition  Consumer Commission v Kokos International Pty Ltd (No 2) [2008] FCA 5 at [48] , French J summarised the cases in the following terms:
There may be a question about their utility given that these reasons set out the findings of fact and the contraventions which underpin the injunctive relief which has been granted and the pecuniary penalties which are to be imposed. However, as Nicholson J pointed out in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 at [6] such declarations:

 Are an appropriate vehicle to record the Court's disapproval of the contravening conduct: Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc [1993] FCA 83 ; (1993) 41 FCR 89 at 100; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen [2003] FCA 897 ; (2003) 132 FCR 309 at [36] . Serve to vindicate the ACCC's claim that the respondents contravened the Act: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Goldy Motors (2000) 23 ATPR 41-801 at [34]. May be of assistance to the ACCC in the future in carrying out the duties conferred upon it by the Act: Goldy Motors 23 ATPR at [34]. Are of assistance in clarifying the law: Goldy Motors 23 ATPR at [34]; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chaste Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq) [2005] FCA 1212 at [146] . May inform consumers of the dangers arising from a respondent's contravening conduct: Chen 132 FCR at [48]; and
 May deter corporations from contravening the Act: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Midland Brick Co Pty Ltd (2004) 207 ALR 329 at [22].
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 340" id="cs11">As to the acknowledgment of the above as relevant considerations in determining whether to grant the declarations counsel referred to the following cases decided under the TPA, but the principles in which were applicable to the FTA - Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc [11] ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v IMB Group Pty Ltd [12] ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Goldy Motors Pty Ltd [13] ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen [14] ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Eurong Beach Resort Ltd [15] ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [16] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 714" id="cs12">The applicant pointed to the decision in Cruse v CFMEU [2007] FMCA 1873. In that case the CFMEU was found to have breached s 38 in connection with an unlawful strike lasting two and a half days. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commissioner v CFMEU [2006] FCA 1730 ; [2007] ATPR 42-140 all four of the present respondents were found to have engaged in secondary boycott action by preventing or hindering the supply of concrete to a site by forming a picket line at the gate. Both Mr McDonald and Mr Powell have had their rights of entry revoked or suspended because of their conduct in connection with the exercise of such rights. The applicant asserts that the CFMEU has, on numerous occasions, been found to have contravened other provisions of industrial legislation involving coercive behaviour and false and misleading statements, advising or organising action with intent to coerce an employer and breaching orders.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 466" id="cs13">13 A number of findings involving unlawful behaviour by officials related to the CFMEU have been made in recent years, in addition to the other case involving Lane (eg Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Coal  Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) [1999] FCA 1714 , (1999) 94 1R 231; Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Hamberger [2003] FCAFC 38 ; (2003) 127 FCR 309 ; Alfred v Walter Construction Group Ltd [2005] FCA 497 ; Martino v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, Magistrates Court of Victoria (Industrial Division), 10 May 2006; Alfred v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union , District Court of New South Wales, 3 March 2004; Hadgkiss v Blevin [2004] FCA 697 ; [2004] FCA 917 ; Hadgkiss v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FCA 524 ; (2007) 162 IR 385 ; Ponzio v B  P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543 ; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 ; Cruse v Multiplex Ltd [2007] FCA 2015 ; Cruse v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2007] FMCA 1873 ; and Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001 ; (2007) 167 IR 320). Counsel for the CFMEU submits that only building industry cases are relevant, and then only those that involve the relevant divisional branch (the New South Wales Construction and General Divisional Branch), bearing in mind that the Union is an amalgamated federation ( Re Election for Office in the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Ex parte Sutton [2002] FCA 971 ; (2002) 115 IR 345 at [23] ). I agree that the classes of case identified are the most relevant, but I do not agree that the other cases are irrelevant. Ultimately, union officials will act in accordance with the policies of the union. An official of one geographic or industry branch will observe the manner in which policies are applied by the federal body in relation to other branches. These various cases illustrate that the federal body has not been effective in ensuring that officials act in accordance with the law. I note that there is no evidence of offending officials (including Lane) suffering any serious disciplinary penalties.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 5" id="cs14">48 Save for the orders sought against Mr Chad Kim in relation to the alleged attempted contravention of the Code, the declaratory orders sought are within the power of the Court to make. There may be a question about their utility given that these reasons set out the findings of fact and the contraventions which underpin the injunctive relief which has been granted and the pecuniary penalties which are to be imposed. However, as Nicholson J pointed out in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 ; (2007) ATPR 42-140 at [6] such declarations:

 1. Are an appropriate vehicle to record the Court's disapproval of the contravening conduct: Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations Inc [1993] FCA 83 ; (1993) 41 FCR 89 at 100; Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Chen [2003] FCA 897 ; (2003) 132 FCR 309 at [36] . 2.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 11" id="cs15">76 In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] FCA 1730 , two unions were involved in conduct on two separate occasions, in April 2004 and again in November 2004, in contravention of s 45D of the TPA. The April conduct interrupted a concrete pour for several hours and it was followed by a picket which obstructed access to a construction site for a new hotel at the Burswood Casino in Perth. The interruption of a concrete pour and the picket caused significant delays to the project and exposed the builder to losses. The November conduct was another picket at the site which restricted access by construction workers. Each of the unions agreed to pay a pecuniary penalty to the Commonwealth of $50,000. Nicholson J concluded that the proposed penalties were appropriate. In doing so, his Honour made particular reference to the fact that the unions had co-operated with the ACCC by approaching the Court for the final disposition of the proceeding on a non-contested basis, and that neither union had engaged in the conduct for financial gain: at [14].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Declarations of right</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 14 Unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 43 Visa holders must usually enter at a port</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 76 Bridging visa not affect visa applications</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 80 Certain persons taken not to leave Australia</title>
<title id="l7">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l8">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 76 Pecuniary penalties.</title>
<title id="l9">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 80 Injunctions.</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v qaah of 2004  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">application for permanent protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">statute requiring minister to be satisfied australia owes protection obligations to the applicant under the convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">applicant previously granted temporary protection visa for a specified period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">whether previous grant of temporary protection visa entitles applicant on application for a new visa to a presumption of being owed protection obligations under the convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">construction of migration act 1958 (cth), s 36</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 53">construction of the convention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">roncevich v repatriation commission  repatriation pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether injury arose out of or was attributable to defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether attendance at mess function compulsory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether attendance at mess function constituted defence service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">applicant injured as a result of falling from window due to intoxication.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">tribunal of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether administrative appeals tribunal gave reasons which conformed to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">sufficiency of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether perverse findings of fact constitute an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">jurisdiction of federal court to disturb perverse findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether returning matter to the administrative appeals tribunal would be futile</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">whether high court should substitute a finding on the facts.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 40">interpretation of beneficial provisions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 74">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 74">application to federal magistrates court for prerogative writs to quash decision of refugee review tribunal that appellant not be granted a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 74">tribunal not satisfied that material corroborating appellant's claims was not fabricated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 74">no relevant findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 74">role of tribunal in conducting a review under the migration act .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte cassim  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">application in original jurisdiction of high court for constitutional writs and injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by reason of statutory provision restricting representation and cross-examination at the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to investigate the applicant's claims and documents adduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by taking into account an irrelevant consideration in refusing to investigate the applicant's claims and documents adduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by making findings of facts so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have come to them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to warn that a document referred to in a decision relied upon by the applicant would be relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to provide a fair and just mechanism for review and by failing to act according to the substantial justice of the case.</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="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 347 Application for review by Migration Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 368D Notifying parties when Tribunal gives an oral decision</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 379A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">application for preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">circumstantial information regarding conduct of former employees on establishing competing business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">whether o 15a r 6(b) is determined by test of "bare pleadable case"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">scope of discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">commercial sensitivity of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">relevance of delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 133">alleged unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 836">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 836">confidentiality regime in place</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 836">whether confidential discovered documents should be available for inspection by the executive chairman of the first applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] WASC 131">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] WASC 131">application for preaction discovery by plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] WASC 131">turns on own facts</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] WASC 131" id="cs0">3 These principles arise from a number of decisions including Rohanna Pty Ltd v Horwath Perth (a firm) [2003] WASC 172 and Waller v Waller [2008] WASC 51. The defendant accepted that the application required these matters be considered in determining the application. However, the defendant added two additional factors which it was submitted are relevant to whether or not an order is made. First, the court must be satisfied that it is appropriate to exercise its discretion to make the order for preliminary discovery. Reference was made to Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 61 and Hancock Family Memorial Foundation Ltd v Fieldhouse (No 2) [2008] WASC 147 [47]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 77">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 77">application for extension of time within which to file and serve notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 77">whether delegate of minister required to give particulars of "information" to applicant pursuant to s 57 of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 77">whether fact that migration agent had informed department that it no longer acted for applicant was "relevant information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 77">whether fact that department had been unable to contact applicant was "relevant information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 77">application devoid of merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 77">extension of time refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">where any extant causes of action vested in applicant's trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether proceedings commenced or continued in circumstances where the applicant should have known he had no chance of success  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">duty to court not to initiate or continue an action unreasonably where it has no chance of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">where limited instructions and evidence to support actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether dereliction of duty by solicitor for applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether proceedings initiated or continued unreasonably</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether solicitor for the applicant should be jointly liable for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">solicitor liable with respect to one of the claims courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether costs should be awarded against solicitor for unsuccessful applicant in favour of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">solicitor instituted and maintained on instructions proceedings which had little or no prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether institution and maintenance on instructions of proceedings with no prospects of success warrants order for costs against solicitor legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether costs should be awarded against solicitor for unsuccessful applicant in favour of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">solicitor instituted and maintained on instructions proceedings which had little or no prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether institution and maintenance on instructions of proceedings with no prospects of success warrants order for costs against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1504">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1504">order that solicitor pay difference between party and party costs recoverable by opposite party under costs order against solicitor's client and opposite party's solicitor and client costs on principles applicable.   bankruptcy act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1504">s 32   bankruptcy rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1504">r 146  federal court of australia act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1504">s 43  federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1504">o 62 r 9  english rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1504">o lxv s 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">power of the court to award costs against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">basis of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">grounds for exercise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">duty to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">misconceived application for entry permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">misconceived proceedings instituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">neglect of duty by solicitor.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">legal practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">award of costs against practitioner personally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">incompetent preparation and presentation of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">unarguable application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">failure to consider essential issues of law and fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">serious dereliction of duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 671">costs award against practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">application for costs thrown away to be paid personally by solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">failure to attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">failure to file, lodge or deliver documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">reasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 390">personal costs order made.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 671" id="cs0">17 The power to award costs against a legal practitioner under O 62 r 9 was recently considered by Weinberg J in Tran v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2006] FCA 199. In that case his Honour delivered judgment refusing an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against a decision of a Federal Magistrate. The question with which his Honour dealt in his subsequent judgment in the matter was whether the applicant's solicitor should be ordered, under O 62 r 9(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules , to repay to the applicant some portion of the costs that the applicant had been ordered to pay to the respondent. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 390" id="cs1">
 (5) Before making an order for costs, the Court or Registrar:
 (a) must give the lawyer, and any other person who may be affected by the decision, a reasonable opportunity to be heard; and
 (b) may order that notice of the order, or of any proceeding against the lawyer be given to a party for whom the lawyer may be acting or any other person.

 14. Guidance on the Court's powers to make such orders can be gleaned from the following authorities to which I have had regard: Myers v Elman [1939] 4 All ER 484 ; Riv-Oland Marble Co (Vic) Pty Ltd v Settef S P A (1989) 63 ALJR 519 ; De Sousa v Minister for Immigration  Local Government  Ethnic Affairs [1993] FCA 146 ; (1993) 41 FCR 544 ; Re Bendeich [1994] FCA 1504 ; (1994) 126 ALR 643 ; Leicester v Walton (New South Wales Court of Appeal, 22 November 1995, unreported); Wentworth v Rogers [1999] NSWCA 403 ; SZABF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs No 2 [2003] FMCA 178 ; Kumar v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs (No.2) [2004] FCA 18 ; Baik  Hankuk Grocery Pty Ltd v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2004] FMCA 543 ; MZWOR v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FMCA 845 ; Tran v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2006] FCA 199. 15. The power to make a costs order directly against a solicitor is an inherent power of the Court.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 78 Children born in Australia</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>