Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">applicant personally responded to "response to hearing invitation" by indicating he did not wish to attend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">tribunal did not conduct tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">tribunal purported to make decision under s.426a prior to scheduled hearing date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">tribunal had no authority pursuant to s.426a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">tribunal complied with obligations in relation to s.425 and s.425a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">s.425(1) no longer requires hearing where applicant consented due to s.425(2)(b) and s.425(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">obligation and entitlement of hearing "ceased to exist"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">tribunal had alternative source of power to make decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">error within tribunal's jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">no temporal limitation on s.425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">no fraud by migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">reference to incorrect source of power does not affect validity of administrative decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">tribunal's conduct did not visit injustice on applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1724">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">invitation to attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">acceptance of invitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">rescheduled hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">fresh notice of rescheduled hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">response by migration agent that applicant did not wish to attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">no authority for response</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">whether consent to tribunal proceeding without hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">no effective consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">tribunal decision beyond power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">period of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">whether minimum prescribed period between notice and hearing applies to rescheduled or adjourned hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 152">prescribed period not applicable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">applicant naff of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">non-compliance with statutory duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal concerned by inconsistencies in applicant's evidence at oral hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">tribunal said it would give the applicant a chance to respond in writing to its concerns</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether tribunal's failure to do so involved a failure to complete the review process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to conduct a review under s 414(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether failure involved a breach of the duty to hear from the applicant under s 425(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 62">whether reviewable error where absence of evidence from the applicant about effect of failure.  migration act 1958 (cth), ss 56 , 414 (1), 415 (1), 425 (1), 427 (1)(b), 420 , pt 7 divs 2-7a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">industrial arbitration (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">commonwealth court of conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">"altering . . . the basic wage or the principles upon which it is computed"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">what constitutes such alteration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">mandamus commanding court to hear application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xxxv.) 75 (v.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">commonwealth conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1948 (no. 13 of 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 33">no. 65 of 1948), ss. 13, 25.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 209">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 209">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 209">indian claiming persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 209">declined hearing before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 209">no arguable jurisdictional error in tribunal's procedures and reasoning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 209">application dismissed at show-cause hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">review of a decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">show cause hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">applicant did not attend before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">once the tribunal rejected the applicant's factual account there was no need for it to consider country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">tribunal's findings were reasonably open to it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">application does not raise an arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1025">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">applicant elected not to attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">applicant lost entitlement to appear at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">applicant seeking impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">tribunal considers all claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">no obligation to undertake inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">tribunal could not be satisfied on what was before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 299">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 498">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 498">application for declaratory relief that applicant is not liable to removal and injunctive relief to restrain the respondent from removing the applicant from australia and continuing to detain the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 498">whether an application for a protection visa has been finally determined in circumstances where the refugee review tribunal's decision is found to have been affected by jurisdictional error but constitutional writ relief was refused and the application for judicial review dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 498">whether the applicant's bridging visa continues in circumstances where he has had notification only of a purported privative clause.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">applicant seeking impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">tribunal considered material before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">tribunal need not uncritically accept any or all of applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">tribunal entitled to make decision without a hearing where applicant had consented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">no bias or apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">no fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 211">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 209" id="cs0">Under s.425 it is now well established that where an applicant gives a consent within s.425(2)(b) , even after receiving an invitation to an appointed hearing, the Tribunal is entitled to act upon that consent by determining the matter on the papers without waiting until the hearing date (see SZIMG  Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 368 ; [2008] FCA 368 ; (2008) 167 FCR 362 at [19] to [22]). Rares J judgment which contains a clear ruling to this effect, and is binding on this Court, was the subject of a special leave application to the High Court (see SZIMG v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] HCASL 437). When refusing leave, Hayne and Crennan JJ said: There is no reason to doubt the correctness of his Honour's decision that the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court should be dismissed. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 1025" id="cs1">In the circumstances the Tribunal was presented with two options, or two legal avenues, both in effect leading to the same result. In the circumstances, the applicant advised the Tribunal that he did not wish to attend the hearing. Pursuant to s.425(2)(b) of the Act, the applicant, therefore, at that time gave up his entitlement to appear at a hearing before the Tribunal. This created the circumstance of permitting the Tribunal to proceed to a decision without taking further action, as the applicant no longer had any right of appearing at a hearing before the Tribunal. (See SZIMG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 368 ; (2008) 167 FCR 362 per Rares J at [21] to [22]. ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 299" id="cs2">The applicant plainly received this letter from the Tribunal. The applicant has put nothing before the Court to deny that proposition. In any event, it would be difficult to do so, given his return of the "Response to Hearing Invitation" form. In light of the Tribunal's warning contained in its letter, his negative response when viewed in light of s.425(2)(b) and s. 425 (3) means, as submitted by Ms Rayment before the Court, that the effect was not just that the applicant could be said to have failed to attend, but through his action in indicating that he did not wish to attend, the applicant lost his entitlement to appear before the Tribunal. This alone created the circumstance and basis to enable the Tribunal to proceed to a decision without taking any further action. I note and apply relevant authority relied on by the Minister in this regard ( SZIMG v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 368 per Rares J at [21]-[22]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 498" id="cs3">Counsel for the Applicant then took the Court to various authorities that had applied the principles in Bhardwaj ( SZHSQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1295 per Rares J at [59]; SZIMG v Minister for immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 368 per Rares J at [24]; Keen v Telstra Corporation Limited [2006] FCA 834 ; (2006) 230 ALR 313 per Rares J at [29]; Tervonen v Minister for Justice and Customs (No.2) [2007] FCA 1684 per Rares J at [115]). However, none of these cases raised the issue before this Court of the legal effect of a decision affected by error where, upon judicial review of the decision of the administrative body, Constitutional writ relief was refused. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 211" id="cs4">Having been informed by the applicant that he did not wish to attend the hearing, and having been informed that he consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without his attendance at a hearing, s.425(3) of the Act was thereby engaged. At that point, the applicant had no entitlement to attend a hearing and, accordingly, there was no need for the Tribunal to go through the "empty form" of holding a hearing or waiting for the "vacated" hearing date to pass (I refer to SZIMG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 368 per Rares J at [21]. See also Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v SZFML [2006] FCAFC 152 [at 64]). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 414 Refugee Review Tribunal must review decisions</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 415 Powers of Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 420 Refugee Review Tribunal's way of operating</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424C Failure to give information, comments or response in response to written invitation</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430A Notifying parties of Tribunal's decision (decision not given orally)</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 659">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 659">alleged jurisdictional errors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 659">failure of tribunal to give applicant more time to provide evidence considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 98">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 98">application for student (temporary) (class tu) visa under the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 98">criteria for subclass 572 visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 98">requirement to demonstrate english language proficiency in accordance with schedule 5a of the migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 98">meaning of "[a test] taken less than two years before the date of application"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 98">whether provision requires that test be taken prior to date of application or whether it can be taken after date of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">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">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 1.03 Definitions</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 1.40 Definitions</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 1.41 Assessment levels to be specified by Minister</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 2.07AO Applications for certain substantive visas by specified persons</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where applicant made references in application for review by refugee review tribunal to material provided to department in visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">meaning of 'information' under s 424a(1) and s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">incorporation by reference in application for review and whether considered 'information' applicant gave for purposes of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">held objective test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where tribunal made positive finding of elaboration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">treatment of omissions in evidence by review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">whether considered information relevant to s 424a(1)(b) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">decision to refuse application for resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether decision unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">when and on what grounds factual errors may be reviewed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">what material decision-maker must consider in application for entry permit.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">de facto marraige alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 364">whether "some basis" to reject permanence of relationship.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether tribunal failed to comply with statutory obligation to give appellant information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether information was within exception to obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether appellant had given information to the tribunal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1031" id="cs0">21 Additionally the first respondent submits that support for the objective approach favoured by Rares J is to be found in other single judge decisions in VWBF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 851 ; (2006) 154 FCR 302 at [44] per Heerey J; SZCNP [2006] FCA 1140 at [18] per Tamberlin J; and SZDAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1598 at [22] per Middleton J.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] VSC 56">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] VSC 56">application for indemnity costs by successful plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] VSC 56">application refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">application for injunction in respect of threatened infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">claim that patent invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">lack of novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">lack of manner of manufacture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">lack of fair basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">false suggestion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">whether serious issue to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">whether applicants for injunction would suffer irreparable harm for which damages would not be adequate compensation unless injunction granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">balance of convenience patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">application for injunction in respect of threatened infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1675">whether applicant has standing as exclusive licensee of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 220">198 the basis of the primary judge's decision was that there was no s 117 issue to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 220">all relevant admissions had been made. that is, the effect of fresenius' admissions and conduct led gambro to conclude, properly, that there was no suggestion that s 117 would not apply. whether the issue that fresenius sought to raise after delivery of the first decision, and now seeks to reagitate, was factual or legal, gambro's contention was that, had it known that there was such an issue, it would have run a case on authorisation. his honour accepted that contention. it follows that, even if the matters now sought to be raised are questions of law, the fact remains that, had gambro been aware that fresenius intended to raise an issue about the application of s 117, it would have run a different case. the primary judge thought that was a conclusive consideration. we see no error in his approach.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">application for injunctions for threatened infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">claim that patent is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">lack of novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">lack of fair basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">whether serious issue to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">whether applicant for injunctions would suffer irreparable harm for which damages would not be adequate compensation unless an injunction is granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">proposed applications for listing of pharmaceutical products on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">applications for injunctions refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">restraint of enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">infringement alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">combination patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">distinction between essential and inessential integers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">one integer not taken</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">whether essential.  patents act, 1952 s.40.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">combination patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">infringement alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">"pith and marrow" test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">essential features of patentee's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">whether alleged infringer has taken all essential features</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">patents act 1952 (cth), s. 40. the appellants were owners of letters patent to an invention relating to a machine for planting sugar cane. the respondents manufactured and sold after the date of the appellants' patent a machine which, in the view of the appellants, infringed their patent. the appellants sued and lost in the supreme court of queensland (connolly j.) and then appealed.  held, per curiam, that on the "pith and marrow" test the separate nature of the small bin and the supply container was a deliberate and essential feature of the patented invention. in the respondents' machine the trough at the front of the respondents' hopper and the rear part of it were elements of one large container. the appeal should therefore be dismissed.  radiation ltd. v. galliers and klaerr pty. ltd. [1938] hca 17 ; (1938), 60 clr 36 ; olin corporation v. super cartridge co. pty. ltd. [1977] hca 23 ; (1977), 51 aljr 525 ; catnic components ltd. v. hill  smith ltd., (1981) fsr 60 , followed.  welch perrin  co. pty. ltd. v. worrel [1961] hca 91 ; (1961), 106 clr 588 ; beecham control group ltd. v. bristol laboratories ltd., (1978) rpc 153 ; marconi v. british radio-telegraph and telephone co. ltd. (1911), 28 rpc 181 ; walker v. alemite corporation [1933] hca 39 ; (1933), 49 clr 643 ; warren v. coombes [1979] hca 9 ; (1979), 142 clr 531 , referred to.  clark v. adie (1875), 10 ch app 667 ; minnesota mining  manufacturing co. v. beiersdorf (australia) ltd. [1980] hca 9 ; (1980), 144 clr 253 , considered.  hearing  sydney, 1981, october 20-22; 1982, april 6. 6:4:1982</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 13 Exclusive rights given by patent</title>
<title id="l4">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 122 Relief for infringement of patent</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">mwj v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">trial by judge without a jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">appellant convicted of three sexual offences against a child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">supposed inconsistencies between the evidence of the complainant and her mother concerning complaints that the complainant made to her mother</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">whether the manner in which the trial judge dealt with the supposed inconsistencies involved error.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">rule in browne v dunn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">application of the rule to an accused in a criminal trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">supposed inconsistencies between the evidence of the complainant and her mother not put to the complainant in cross-examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">whether the complainant should have been re-called</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 74">consequences for trial judge's decision-making.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">judges and courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">claim that trial judge erred in assessing credibility of appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">whether trial judge erred in assessing credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">whether appeal court should overturn credibility findings trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">claim of misleading and deceptive and negligent conduct by real estate agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">whether valuation of property misleading and deceptive and negligent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">whether trial judge erred in assessing value of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">valuation principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">whether trial judge erred in finding that appellants had not relied upon valuationpractice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 48">whether trial judge erred in failing to allow appellants to rely upon claim in amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">fox v percy  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">review of findings of fact based on trial judge's assessment of credibility of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">whether findings inconsistent with incontrovertibly established facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">power of appellate court to set aside findings.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">issue not raised at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">where argued that expert report based on matters not proved or supported by the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">whether re-examination of facts by appellate court appropriate.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">rehearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">substitution of judgment of appellate court for that of trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 22">whether re-trial an appropriate remedy.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory decision of a judge of the court to the full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">whether litigation was reasonably anticipated by the accc on 15 december 2004</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">whether accc could only reasonably anticipate litigation when the commissioners had resolved to commence legal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">whether the dominant purpose of the creation of the documents was for use in litigation as distinct from investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">whether documents relating to the grant by the accc of immunity and/or leniency to amcor were discoverable or only relevant as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">whether the primary judge erred in refusing the applicants' request to cross-examine mr williams</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 147">application for leave to appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of civil penalty provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">orders for compensation and pecuniary penalties and disqualification from managing corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether error shown in the trial judge's findings of contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">consideration of appellate review of first instance findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether findings paid regard to matters outside the plaintiff's pleaded and particularised case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">consideration of functions of pleadings and particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">to ensure procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of s208 of the act relating to giving a financial benefit to a related party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether payment of money to related party as loan or held on trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">if held on trust whether a bare trust for payer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event was giving a financial benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">financial benefit not on reasonable arms length terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">involvement in the contraventions of s208</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether necessary to know financial benefit was given otherwise on reasonable arms length terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">sufficient to know facts whereby financial benefit was given otherwise than on reasonable arms length terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of s260a of the act relating to a company giving financial assistance to acquire its shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">same payment of money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether material prejudice to the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether opinion evidence of material prejudice properly admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in holding that opinion wholly or substantially based on witness's experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">even without the opinion evidence, material prejudice whether or not money held on trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">involvement in the contraventions of s260a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether plaintiff must prove knowledge of facts constituting material prejudice to the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">not necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event there was knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.28">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">contraventions of ss180, 181, 182 and 183 of the act relating to director's duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.29">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">same payment of money and use of the money in various ways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.30">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether opinion evidence that conduct was contrary to the provisions properly admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.31">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">again no error in holding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.32">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">no error in trial judge's findings of contraventions of ss180, 181, 182</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.33">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">but conduct alleged and proved did not constitute contravention of s183</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.34">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">jones v dunkel inferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.35">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether available in civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.36">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">are civil proceedings and inferences available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.37">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">were available on the facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.38">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">rules of prosecutorial fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.39">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether applied so that plaintiff obliged to call a material witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.40">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">did not apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.41">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event no miscarriage if witness not called</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.42">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">causation of loss to the company paying the money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.43">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">necessity to show company would not have paid if director's duties fulfilled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.44">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether analogy with claims against defaulting fiduciaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.45">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">not analogous and must show causation in fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.46">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">on facts no error in finding of causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.47">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">loss through loss of use of money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.48">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether analogy with claims against defaulting fiduciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.49">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">not analogous and must show loss in fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.50">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">different interest rate to calculate loss from that used by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.51">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.52">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">trial judge's orders affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.53">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">disqualifications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.54">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">whether can make order as to some corporations only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.55">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">order is as to management of corporations and can not do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.56">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 131">in any event trial judge's orders affirmed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">unlawful non-citizens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">detention pending removal from australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">where applicant alleges it is not reasonably practicable to remove</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">objection to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">whether removal from australia a privative clause decision within the meaning of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">whether migration act 1958 (cth) s 476a prevents federal court from entertaining claim for relief founded on jurisdictional error or tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">where concurrent claim in tort against officer of the commonwealth within the meaning of s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">whether s 476a of the migration act 1958 (cth) overcome by federal court's accrued jurisdiction. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">whether 'reasonable practicability' of removal a jurisdictional fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">factors to be considered in assessing whether a factual reference is a jurisdictional fact to be finally determined by a court. held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">reasonable practicability of removal not a jurisdictional fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">decision privative clause decision or purported privative clause decision within the meaning of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">federal court lacks original jurisdiction in relation to claim founded on jurisdictional error or tort by reason of s 476a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 1368">claim not within federal court's accrued jurisdiction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">removal of unlawful non-citizen from australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">duty on officer to remove as soon as reasonably practicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">mental health considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">whether obligation to consider new medical evidence after decision to remove and before removal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">application for urgent interim injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">undertaking given by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 860">matter adjourned for expedited final hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 763">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 763">transfer of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 763">opposition of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 763">court acting on its own motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1524">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1524">minister's exercise of powers to remove unlawful non-citizen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1524">consent application for indefinite adjournment while minister considers grant of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1524">adjournment for only several months allowed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal identifies no error of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal only raises errors committed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 860" id="cs0">The matter was listed this morning before Foster J. It appears that argument in relation to the making of a further interim order came to an end, when his Honour's attention was drawn to the judgment of Tamberlin J in Asaad v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1039 which discusses the jurisdiction of the Federal Court and this Court in relation to administrative actions taken under s.198(6) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). His Honour then ordered the transfer of the matter to this Court, and it came before me at 2.15pm. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 763" id="cs1">But doubt as to whether this Court's jurisdiction has been properly invoked need not presently be resolved because the power to transfer a proceeding exists even where a question arises as to jurisdiction: cf Assad v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 1039. Tamberlin J there concluded:
 [21] I note that during argument as to whether the Court ought to transfer the matter to the Federal Magistrates Court, a question arose as to whether this Court has power to remit a "proceeding" to the Federal Magistrates Court where this Court does not have jurisdiction due to the absence of a federal "matter". In my view, the expression "proceeding" in s 32AB of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) is distinct from the expression "matter" (as used in s 39B(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)) and is sufficiently wide to encompass the present dispute between the parties. I therefore consider that the Court has power to, and should, transfer the proceeding notwithstanding any doubt which may exist as to its jurisdiction to hear and determine the application.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1524" id="cs2">On 14 July 2008, he ordered that the proceeding be transferred to this Court (see [The Applicant] v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1039). He said that there was a doubt about the Federal Court's jurisdiction in the matter, and that this Court's jurisdiction was clearer. His Honour appears to have proceeded on the basis that a "migration decision", as defined in the Migration Act as a precondition to this Court's jurisdiction under s.476 , had been identified by the applicant, being a particular past or proposed decision by the Minister to effect the applicant's removal from Australia. He said that the considerations, on balance, favoured transferring the proceeding to this Court "thereby avoiding unnecessary delay and expense resulting from disputes concerning jurisdiction. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1263" id="cs3">7 Division 2 of Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides for the manner in which decisions may be reviewed by the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the High Court. Section 476 provides for the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court. Section 476(2)(a) and (d), it has recently been held, are not invalid because they oblige the High Court to exercise exclusively and without remitter the jurisdiction conferred by s 75(v) of the Constitution with respect to certain decisions of the Minister: MZXOT v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] HCA 28. Section 476A provides for the limited original jurisdiction to be entertained by this Court: eg, Assad v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1039 ; La Bara v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 785 at [3] ; Shuster v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 215 at [6]---[7] [2008] FCA 215 ; , 167 FCR 186 at 188. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is relevantly that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). That appellate jurisdiction may be exercised by a single Judge of this Court: s 25(1AA)(a). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 32AB Discretionary transfer of civil proceedings to the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5E Meaning of purported privative clause decision</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 198 Removal from Australia of unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 417 Minister may substitute more favourable decision</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">media access to affidavits in evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">affidavits filed in ex parte proceedings for interim preservation orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">exhibiting transcripts of examinations under s 19 of the asic act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">objections based on speculative risks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">access permitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 403">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 403">interlocutory injunction industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 403">construction of terms of certified agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">public access to documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic courtroom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic media court book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">federal court rules , o 46 r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement claimed to contravene the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused.  pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">amendment of statement of claim.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appeal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion under s.50 considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order made prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon appropriate undertakings being given.  trade practices act 1974 , ss 45 and 45a;  federal court of australia act 1976 , ss.17 and 50 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">agreement alleged to contravene s. 45</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">confidentiality claimed for certain parts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and restricting inspection refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45a.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">ambit of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">order prohibiting publication and permitting inspection to certain persons upon undertakings given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 17 , 50 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">application to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">leave to amend refused by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments ambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">whether proposed amendments added substance. the australian broadcasting commission ("the a.b.c.") instituted proceedings in the federal court of australia against the members for the time being of the australian cricket board ("the board") and three corporations ("the corporations"). in the proceedings the a.b.c. sought certain relief for alleged breaches of the provisions of the trade practices act 1974 ("the act ") in relation to a written agreement between the board and the corporations dated 30th may, 1979. in the course of the proceedings the court refused to allow the a.b.c. to amend the already amended statement of claim in two separate respects. the a.b.c. appealed to the full court of the federal court of australia against this decision (appeal no. g13 of 1980). on the 18th february, 1980, the primary court decided further that the a.b.c. should be granted unrestricted access to certain parts of the agreement which were claimed to be confidential and that, upon the agreement being tendered and received in evidence, no order restricting publication of those parts of the agreement should be made pursuant to s. 50 of the federal court of australia act 1976 . appeals were lodged against the two last-mentioned decisions by the board and the three corporations (appeals nos. g14 and g15 of 1980). the three appeals were heard together and disposed of in a single judgment.  held: per curiam</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[1980] FCA 33">the appeal in matter g13 should be dismissed with costs because: (1) the proposed amendment to par. 5 of the amended statement of claim was ambiguous and added nothing of substance.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">particulars sought but not provided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">undertaking sought to protect identity of unnamed persons referred to in amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">form of undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">order of court sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">powers of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">necessity to promptly disclose information to enable meaningful defences to be filed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1060">inspection of documents by the public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] WASAT 112">working with children (criminal record checking) act 2004 (wa)  review of refusal of application to have a negative notice issued to a school teacher cancelled  class 2 offences  nonconviction charges 17 years apart  whether satisfied in the particular circumstances of the case that an assessment notice should issue  whether unacceptable risk that applicant will cause sexual or physical harm to children in the course of carrying out child-related work  best interests of children paramount consideration</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1060" id="cs0">The interrelationship between ss 17 and 50 and Order 46 r 6 was also explored by Siopis J in Y v University of Western Australia [2006] FCA 466 , 151 FCR 322 (" Y "). Access had there been sought to material in another case involving sexual harassment claims. His Honour referred to s 17(1) and (4) and an earlier decision of the Full Court of this Court as follows:

 [18] These sections give effect to a fundamental democratic principle of open justice which requires that the Court's work is done in public and be subject to the scrutiny of the public.

 [19] The question of whether damage and embarrassment and considerations of confidentiality and privacy could found the basis for the making of a suppression order was considered recently by the Full Court in the case of Herald  Weekly Times Ltd v Williams [2003] FCAFC 217 ; (2003) 130 FCR 435.

He then referred to a further argument and said:

 [40] As to the wider argument by Senior Counsel for the University that the failure to suppress the names of the complainants may lead to persons in general being less likely to report sexual harassment, this is a variant of the argument founded on the potential for embarrassment of a party or a witness by the disclosure of that person's name. As mentioned, the extent to which embarrassment and distress may lead to the making of a suppression order under s 50 of the Act, in any proceeding, must be assessed by reference to the application of the principles in Williams , to that proceeding. In other words, the question of whether to make a suppression order under s 50 of the Act is not to be assessed by reference to broad public policy considerations, but by reference to the extent to which, on the evidence, the administration of justice may be prejudiced in any specific proceeding by not making the order. As stated at [24], it is established on the authorities that embarrassment, standing alone, is not sufficient for the making of an order under s 50 of the Act.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] WASAT 112" id="cs1">110 Counsel for the applicant referred us to a decision of Siopis J in the Federal Court in Y v The University of Western Australia (No 2 ) [2006] FCA 466 in which his Honour reviewed authorities regarding the making of suppression orders under s 50 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) where there was a statutory or other regime in place relating to the confidentiality of the matter on appeal.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 230" id="cs2">This statement of principle has been applied in a number of first instance decisions of this Court: see Nicholls v Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2009] FCA 123 at [4] per Mansfield J; Re Universal Music (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sharman Licence Holdings Ltd; Ex parte Merlin BV [2008] FCA 783 at [31] - [33] per Jacobson J; Rich v Harrington [2007] FCA 1979 at [23] per Branson J; Y v University of Western Australia (No 2) [2006] FCA 466 ; (2006) 151 FCR 322 at 332 [46] per Siopis J; Re Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No 2) [2006] FCA 407 ; (2006) 232 ALR 398 at 403 [18] per French J. The earlier decision of Finkelstein J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 609 was to a similar effect except that the reasoning was in terms at [7] confined to:
... cases where a non-party seeks access to material which has been relied upon by the judge. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 17 Exercise of jurisdiction in open court and in Chambers</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 50 Prohibition of publication of evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">failure of directors to carry out duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">wrongful granting of authority to act by one director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">reliance by two other directors upon the third director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">late admissions of breaches</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">breaches serious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">remorse and contrition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">restitution to members suffering loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">professional impacts of proposed penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">unblemished prior professional records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">whether disqualification order appropriate for director principally responsible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 388">quantum of pecuniary penalties for all three directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1037">6 on the other hand, "white collar" offences committed by prominent business people have a tendency to erode the moral base of the law and provide an opportunity for other offenders to justify their misconduct. they are diffuse in their impact and are easily concealed. any slip from the high standards demanded of a director can put at risk the company, its investors and</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1037">in extreme cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1037">the economy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">rich v australian securities and investments commission  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">privileges against exposure to penalties and forfeitures</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">proceedings brought by australian securities and investments commission seeking declarations of contravention under the corporations act 2001 (cth), s 1317e , compensation orders pursuant to the corporations act 2001 , s 1317h and orders pursuant to the corporations act 2001 , ss 206c and 206e disqualifying each defendant from managing corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">rules of evidence and procedure for civil matters to apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">where defendant ordered to make discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">where disqualification described as "civil penalty provision" by the corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">whether exposure to disqualification order is exposure to a penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">whether order is "punitive" or "protective" and whether this classification is useful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">whether order for discovery should have been made.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">construction of corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">provision for disqualification of company officers from managing corporations in the future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">disqualification contained in "civil penalty provisions" of the corporations act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">whether exposure to disqualification order is exposure to a penalty for purposes of the penalty privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 42">whether order for discovery should have been made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">disqualification order from managing a corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">relevant principles and factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">contrition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">impossibility of order limited to public companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">disqualified person can later apply for permission on a restricted or conditional basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">compensation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">difficulty of differentiation between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">pecuniary penalty order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">relevant principles and factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">relevance of multiple contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">exoneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">appearance of honesty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 483">relationship between civil and criminal prosecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] n w frozen foods proprietary ltd v australian competition  consumer commission [1996] fca 1134 (20 december 1996)    trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalties under s.76 for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of agreement between a.c.c.c. and corporation on joint submissions proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">desirability of settlement of such cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalty cases not criminal prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of undertaking by corporation of a compliance programme agreed with the commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">difficulties in comparing penalties in other cases with that proposed for the instant case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">importance of the particular market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of identity of corporation to be penalised where it was a member of a group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of whether a corporation has previously contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">inappropriateness of diminishing the credit to be given a corporation for co-operation and admission of liability by reference to any costs saving it may achieve thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">reference to u.s. law conceding the u.s. federal trade commission "a special competence in formulating remedies"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">discussion of the question for the court where penalty is the subject of an agreed joint submission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">misleading or deceptive conduct by corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">liability of persons aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring or party to contravention by corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">whether knowledge of material facts necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">whether knowledge that facts constitute contravention necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">trade practices act 1974 (cth),ss. 52, 75b, 82</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12DA Misleading or deceptive conduct</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12DB False or misleading representations</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 206E Court power of disqualification--repeated contraventions of Act</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 911A Need for an Australian financial services licence</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1041H Misleading or deceptive conduct (civil liability only)</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1018">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1018">application for review of sequestration order − where judgement debt subject of application for declaration in local court − where debtor had requested an adjournment at the hearing before the sm following withdrawal of counsel, after which the debtor's solicitor refused to open the case on grounds he would later be called to give evidence − where debtor has appealed sm's decision not to grant adjournment − whether judgment debt satisfied − where insufficient evidence of debtor's solvency − whether in such circumstances court should exercise its discretion not to make a sequestration order − whether court should adjourn hearing of petition until appeal of sm's decision decided − whether "other sufficient cause" to dismiss petition under s.52(2) bankruptcy act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 688">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 688">witness statement reporting conversation in indirect speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 688">form does not affect admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 688">desirability of words actually spoken being reported if remembered even in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 688">preferable in this case that the evidence be adduced orally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 138">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 138">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 138">whether phrase in s. 52 (2) (a) "is able to pay his debts" means "is able and willing to pay his debts"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 138">whether phrase "it may dismiss the petition" in s. 52 (2) is mandatory or discretionary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 66">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 66">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 66">whether debtor is "able to pay his debts"  bankruptcy act, 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 66">s.52(2)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">petition for sequestration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">improper issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">extortion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">what constitutes abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">discretion of court to make sequestration order notwithstanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">bankruptcy act 1924-1954 (no. 37 of 1924</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1956] HCA 65">no. 83 of 1954), ss. 54 (1), 56 (2) (3).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] SASC 303" id="cs0">"Eighth action" [107] . On 8 August 2006 Hamilton-Smith appealed to the Federal Court, SAD 147/06, against the sequestration order made in the fifth action. On 21 November 2006 Besanko J allowed the appeal, published reasons [2006] FCA 1551 , set aside the sequestration order and remitted the proceedings back to the Federal Magistrates Court. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] SASC 225" id="cs1">"Eighth action" [107] . On 8 August 2006 Hamilton-Smith appealed to the Federal Court, SAD 147/06, against the sequestration order made in the fifth action. On 21 November 2006 Besanko J allowed the appeal, published reasons [2006] FCA 1551 , set aside the sequestration order and remitted the proceedings back to the Federal Magistrates Court. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1841" id="cs2">1 On 21 November 2006 I delivered reasons in this appeal: Hamilton-Smith v George [2006] FCA 1551. I also made orders that the appeal be allowed and that the sequestration order against the estate of Ms Tanya Hamilton-Smith made by the Federal Magistrates Court on 19 July 2006 be set aside. I said that I would hear the parties as to other appropriate orders and I did so on 24 November 2006 and again this morning. There were major differences between the parties as to what were the appropriate orders other than those which I have already made.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 52 Proceedings and order on creditor's petition</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 56 Relevant evidence to be admissible</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 102 Registrars' powers</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 103 Delegation of powers to Registrars</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 104 Registrars--additional provisions</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l12">EVIDENCE ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l13">EVIDENCE ACT 2001 - SECT 135 135.General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
</legistitles>
</case>