Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">o 20 r 2 federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether applicant has standing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">nature of rights sought to be enforced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether private rights or public rights conferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">no consent of the attorney-general sought to commence proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether statue confers rights such that applicant has standing discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">standing under the human rights and equal opportunity commission act 1986 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">s 46p</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether applicant "person aggrieved"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">access to public transport infrastructure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">applicant incorporated association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether incorporated association has standing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">test of "aggrieved person" in the context of the hreoc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether composition of the applicant's members relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether special interest in the proceedings beyond that of an ordinary member of the public practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether acceptance of complainant by hreoc established standing as "aggrieved person" for the purposes of proceedings before the court discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 615">whether "equivalent access" provisions of the disability standards are to be raised as a defence to a finding of discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 51">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 51">application for costs of trial and appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 51">application based on an offer of compromise made pursuant to o 23 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 51">whether an offer made to all respondents is capable of being accepted by only one</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 51">whether unreasonable conduct of litigation should affect costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">'public interest' litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">appeal unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 51">whether costs should follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">whether case under disability discrimination act a no costs matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">exercise of judicial discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">whether public interest factors weighed against order of costs in favour of successful respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">high court decision handed down after proceeding commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">whether public interest factors applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">conduct of respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 594">costs of excessive photocopying</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">discrimination act 1991 (act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">appeal from supreme court of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">legislative scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">objects of the discrimination act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">structure, language and content of discrimination act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">what constitutes discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">discrimination in respect of the provision of goods, services and facilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">discrimination on the ground of occupation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">whether unfavourable treatment by respondent was because of the appellant's occupation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">whether respondent's conduct was reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">whether question of "reasonableness" is one of fact or law  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">whether usual orders as to costs should follow</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2001] FCA 379">public interest element</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">oshlack v richmond river council  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">statutory power under environmental planning and assessment legislation to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">"public interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">significant issues of interpretation of that legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">whether discretion with respect to costs miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates' courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">discretion to award costs to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates (summary proceedings) act 1975 (vict.), s.97(b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1018">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1018">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1018">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 1018">applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">loans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">a loan by way of vendor finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">under special conditions in contract for sale vendor occupied property under licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">express terms as to licence fee payable by vendor during term of licence or date of vacant possession, whichever is the later</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">remained in occupation beyond six month term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">stock and car parts and other objects left on site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">no vacant possession prior to clean-up of site in 2008</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">undated loan agreement and undated mortgage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">executed some time after contract for salemortgage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">failed to specify loan secured</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">undated loan agreement did not purport to vary contract for sale the terms for repayment of which differed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">could not be read together</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">mortgage did not secure the monies the subject of the vendor finance loanvendor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">what constitutes vacant possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 36">plaintiff's (bankrupt vendor's trustee in bankruptcy) claim for order for possession dismissed pursuant to part 13 rule 13.4(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1340">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1340">no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1340">abuse of process vexatious proceeding in this and the other courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1340">costs matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1340">raise issue of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1340">seeking orders of person benefit costs against unsuccessful applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">copyright material uploaded onto website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">infringement and conversion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">entitlement to conversion damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">entitlement to additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">copyright act 1968 (cth) ss 115(2) , 115 (4), 116  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">principles relevant to an award of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">whether court should depart from ordinary rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">groundless contentions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">indemnity costs awarded costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">time for taxation and payment of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">departure from general rule in o 62 r 3(3) of the federal court rules (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">costs to be taxed and paid forthwith costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">liberty to apply for costs to be fixed in gross sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 1375">o 62 r 4(2)(c) of the federal court rules (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">order 62a rule 1 of federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">claim of direct and indirect discrimination in relation to independent travel criteria imposed by airline respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">criteria require disabled passengers who cannot comply to fly with carer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">applicants seek maximum costs order under o 62a r 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">factors relevant to court's discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">public interest in determination of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">public interest alone not decisive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">novel questions raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">application brought in timely manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">no financial benefit to applicants in bringing proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">applicants reluctant to continue litigation without order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">combination of factors make it appropriate to make order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">difficult to determine complexity of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 864">approximate amount of maximum costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">where consent orders made for the respondents and cross-claimants to provide further and better particulars of their pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">non-compliance with court orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">where the applicants/cross-respondents filed motion for further and better particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">where the cross-claimants filed motions seeking leave to file revised cross-claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">where the revised cross-claim pleaded causes of action which were subsequently withdrawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 629">cross-claimants to pay the cross-respondents costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">misconduct of respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">undue prolongation of defence.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">time for taxation of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">departure from general rule in federal court rules order 62 r 3(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">time for payment of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">o 62 r 3(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">costs to be paid forthwith.  orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 1823">stay of orders for taxation and payment of costs pending disposition of application for leave to appeal and any appeal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 1018" id="cs0">The Court must be persuaded that there are "compelling and exceptional circumstances" not to order indemnity costs. An element of this issue of compelling and exceptional circumstances is the issue of public interest. The argument has been advanced that it is not in the public interest to award indemnity costs against Mr Vassallo in proceedings which arise under the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) . In Access for All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc. v Hervey Bay City Council [2007] FCA 974 per Collier J at [27] where her Honour states: [27] First, it is clear from a number of cases that the fact that the case is a human rights and/or discrimination case does not of itself automatically characterise the proceedings as being in the public interest with the result that the court should divert from usual orders as to costs (Sluggett v HREOC [2002] FCA 1060 and Fetherson v Peninsula Health (No 2) [2004] FCA 594 ). Similar considerations apply where, for example, the proceedings are instituted by a litigant with a view to protection of the environment (Australian Conservation Foundation Inc v The Commonwealth of Australia [1979] HCA 1 ; (1980) 146 CLR 493 ; Save the Ridge Inc v Commonwealth [2006] FCAFC 51 ; [2006] FCAFC 51 ; (2006) 230 ALR 411 ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 36" id="cs1">42 On 2 July 2007, the Federal Court (Edmonds J) in Nishtom Pty Limited  Ors v Robinson [2007] FCA 974 decided the proceedings and ordered the defendants' Proof of Debt lodged in Mr Kinsella's bankruptcy with the plaintiff for the occupation fee up to 30 August 2006 be accepted in the amount of $119,646.44.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1340" id="cs2">In Pitt v One Steel Reinforcing Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 923 Justice Gray ordered the unsuccessful applicant to pay the respondent's costs in that human rights matter. In Rana v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] FCA 907 Lander J awarded costs against the unsuccessful applicant in that human rights matter that was found to be an abuse of process, and the applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. In Access For All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council [2007] FCA 974 Justice Collier held that a human rights and/or discrimination case will not automatically be regarded as a proceeding in the public interest. In Theodore Xiros v Fortis Life Assurance Ltd [2001] FMCA 15 ; (2001) 162 FLR 433 Driver FM dismissed the application but declined to award costs to the respondent on the basis of a significant public interest element. " ... His Honour stated: All human rights proceedings contain some element of public interest in that the legislation is remedial in character, addressing the public mischief of discrimination.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1375" id="cs3">

31 Other cases decided recently in this Court show that these principles are regularly applied: see, e.g., Barrett Property Group Limited v Metricon Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 1823 (" Barrett ") at [3]-[5] per Gilmour J; Xat Ky v Australvic Property Management Pty Ltd (No 2 ) [2007] FCA 1785 at [12] - [13], [29] per Middleton J; Access for All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council [2007] FCA 974 at [10] per Collier J; Jainshe Southern Pty Ltd v Turnbull Cooktown Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 903 per Besanko J; and Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 179 at [4] - [5] per Finn J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 864" id="cs4">56 As Collier J observed in Access For All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council [2007] FCA 974 at [10] , in the context of the exercise of the discretion concerning costs, the issue is whether there is anything about the particular proceedings to persuade me that it is appropriate to depart from the usual order. Other decided cases in which some but not all factors are present or cases that present different considerations are ' not particularly helpful ' ( Fetherston at [12] per Heerey J). I note that in no other case cited by the parties were all of the factors present that arise in these proceedings. For example, the application was only made after judgment was given ( Dibbs ; Access For All Alliance ) or the case could not be characterised as public interest litigation ( Access For All Alliance ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 629" id="cs5">This is so even where the ordinary practice is departed from. The aim is not to punish or deter future litigants but simply to compensate a party fully for costs which normal party-party costs could not be expected to do, where it was unreasonable for that party to be subjected to any expenditure of costs, such as where a hopeless proceeding is brought: Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 179 at [4]- [5]. Any departure from this general rule requires a special reason: Access For All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council [2007] FCA 974 at [10] ; Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v Next Publishing Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 971 at [5] . The categories in respect of which departure from the usual rule are contained are not closed: John S Hayes  Associates Pty Limited v [Kimberly-Clark] Australia Pty Limited (1994) 52 FCR [201]; Jianshe Southern Pty Ltd v Turnbull Cooktown Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 903 at [32] . In Colgate-Palmolive, (at p 233) Sheppard J identified various categories which might give rise to an award of indemnity costs.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1823" id="cs6">3 An award of costs is in the discretion of the Court or Judge except as provided by any other Act: Federal Court of Australia Act s 43(2). The discretion must be exercised judicially. In the normal course, costs are ordered to be paid on a party and party basis: Colgate-Palmolive Company v Cussons Pty Limited [1993] FCA 536 ; (1993) 46 FCR 225 at 232; Re Wilcox; Ex parte Ventura Industries Pty Ltd (No 2) (1996) 72 FCR 152 at 158 per Cooper and Merkel JJ. A costs order is not intended to punish the unsuccessful party but rather to compensate the successful party: Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland (No 2) [2005] FCA 793 at [5] . This is so even where the ordinary practice is departed from. The aim is not to punish or deter future litigants but simply to compensate a party fully for costs which normal party-party costs could not be expected to do, where it was unreasonable for that party to be subjected to any expenditure of costs, such as where a hopeless proceeding is brought: Cirillo v Consolidated Press Property Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 179 at [4] - [5]. Any departure from this general rule requires a special reason: Access For All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council [2007] FCA 974 at [10] ; Pacific Publications Pty Ltd v Next Publishing Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 971 at [5] . The categories in respect of which departure from the usual rule are contained are not closed: John S Hayes  Associates Pty Limited v Kimberley-Clarke Australia Pty Limited (1994) 52 FCR 203 ; Jianshe Southern Pty Ltd v Turnbull Cooktown Pty Ltd (No 2) [2007] FCA 903 at [32] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l1">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 31 Disability standards</title>
<title id="l2">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 32 Unlawful to contravene disability standards</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 498">application doc title investigator grant body amount received invention date 28/01/1985 augmentation of effect of chemotherapeutic agents mander, gray, burton rph $10,000 (microspheres) $3,770 (lab assistant) dox* 28/01/1985 (1985-4) augmentation of effect of chemotherapeutic agents mander, gray, burton rph $10,000 (microspheres) $3,770 (lab assistant) 25/07/1985 manipulation of tumour blood flow to facilitate therapy gray uwa special research grant $57,510 for 1986-1987; additional $2060 awarded for 'maintenance' in 1987 sir 25/07/1985 (1986-87) manipulation of tumour blood flow to facilitate therapy gray uwa special research grant $57,510 for 1986-1987; additional $2060 awarded for 'maintenance' in 1987 6/12/1985 treatment of hepatic metastases with intra-hepatic radioactive microspheres mander, burton uwa (faculty of medicine) $3,990 sir 24/03/1986 the utilization of microspheres as vehicles for the accurate and sustained delivery of anti-cancer drugs. hodgkin; mau; burton; gray csiro/uwa collaborative research fund $36, 571 dox* 30/01/1987 the manufacture of chemotherapeutic microspheres with novantrone, floxuridine and mitomycin-c c jones; burton; gray rph $3,000 dox* 26/06/1987 (1987-4) hyperthermia of tumours utilising hysteresis heat loss from selectively targeted ferromagnetic particles gray, detchon clive and vera ramaciotti foundation research nil. grant is marked "unsuccessful" 27/11/1987 assessment of the ability of 5-fu to prevent liver and peritoneal metastases from colonic carcinoma archer, gray uwa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 498">faculty of medicine not in evidence 9/12/1987 polymer mediated chemotherapy of localised tumours gray, burton rph $6,240 dox* 16/08/1988 manufacture of sustained release microspheres for 5fu, fudr and mitrozantone burton; trotter cfwa (administered by uwa) $32,330 dox* 28/11/1988 selective internal radiation therapy for metastatic liver cancer gray uwa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 498">faculty of medicine $8,800 sir x/x/1988 ** clinical trials in bowel cancer / redistribution of liver blood flow nhmrc $17,000/ $42,000 29/11/1988 electromagnetic radiation induced hyperthermia treatment of liver tumours kelleher uwa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 498">faculty of medicine $3,567 thermo* x/x/1988 ** electromagnetic radiation induced hyperthermia treatment of liver tumours medwa $38,750 sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 498">amount received not specified. 26/01/1989 selective internal radiation therapy for the treatment of metastatic liver cancer gray rph $6,518 sir 31/01/1989 electromagnetic radiation induced hyperthermia treatment of liver tumours kelleher; burton rph $3,567 thermo* 31/01/1989 a pilot study of adjuvant sir-therapy burton rph $2,104 sir 24/02/1989 augmentation of the dynamics of adriamycin chemotherapy burton, chen nhmrc (administered by uwa) $117,279.84 for 1990 to 1992 dox 26/06/1989 efficacy of floxuridine transported on ion exchange microspheres burton; chen cfwa (administered by uwa) $36,132 dox 27/08/1989 research grant application entitled 'effect of treatment on immune cell population' gray; codde racs (administered by uwa) not in evidence 16/02/1990 development of ferromagnetic microspheres for treatment of cancer by induced hyperthermia resulting from hysteresis heating s jones rph $5,700 thermo 16/02/1990 formulation of macromolecular conjugates of fudr chen, blackbourn rph $5,700 dox* 16/02/1990 grants 1990-7: optimization programme for sir-therapy gray; burton rph $5,555 28/02/1990 randomised trial of selective internal radiation therapy in liver cancer gray; van hazel nhmrc (administered by uwa) $213,212.68 over 3 years to 31 july 1994 sir 20/06/1990 hyperthermia of tumours utilising hysteresis heat loss from selectively targeted ferromagnetic particles s jones; gray clive and vera ramaciotti foundation research not in evidence thermo 20/06/1990 (1990-8) hyperthermia of tumours utilising hysteresis heat loss from selectively targeted ferromagnetic particles s jones; gray clive and vera ramaciotti foundation research (administered by rph) not in evidence 23/01/1991 therapeutic evaluation of cytotoxic drug carriers codde rph $13,260 dox* 31/01/1991 formulation of sustained release carriers for cisplatin chen, blackbourn rph $9,970 dox 31/01/1991 optimization of magnetic parameters for hyperthermia cancer therapy using hysteresis heating s jones, gray rph $8,994 thermo 3/05/1991 development of complexed doxorubicin-metal ion microspheres hodgkin; mau; burton; chen csiro/uwa collaborative research fund $31,917 dox 11/02/1992 scheduling hyperthermia and chemotherapy burton rph not in evidence 14/02/1992 development of biodegradable magneto</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 498">responsive microspheres' gray, chen, blackbourn rph $3,680 other projects (thermo*) 19/05/1992 magnetoregulated release of doxorubicin from albumin-heparin microspheres jones; chen cfwa (administered by rph) $37,000 other projects (thermo*) 15/09/1992 development of a hyperthermia research program burton, jones, gray, chen, codde telethon unclear. possibly $50,000 or $40,000 thermo* 2/12/1993 magneto-regulated doxorubicin delivery chen rph $4,350 other projects (thermo*) 2/12/1993 grants 1993-1: in vivo investigation of induced hyperthermia by ferromagnetic hysteresis technique s jones rph $10,010 thermo 2/12/1993 grants 1993-2: magnetoregulated doxorubicin delivery chen rph $4,350 11/02/1994 investigation of microsphere mediated hyperthermia in rabbit tumour model s jones rph $9,650 thermo 7/07/1995 development of a device for evaluation of a rotational hysteresis losses s jones arc (administered by uwa) $12,609 thermo 8/11/1997 the development of targeted products for the treatment of cancer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">pending special leave application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">non-determination of substantive application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">need for special circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">extraordinary nature of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">special rules for stay of orders designed to protect public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">sequestration order in bankrupt's estate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.   bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">special leave application to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">application for stay of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">effect on tenure of councillor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">in local government authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">relevance of interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.   local government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">elected councillor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">disqualification from office by reason of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">application for stay pending special leave application to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">effect of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[1996] HCA 3">stay refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 329">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 329">order for payment by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 329">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 329">application for payment of costs prior to hearing of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 329">application refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 15 Casual vacancies [see Note 8]</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 21 Vacancy to be notified</title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 73 Appellate jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l4">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l5">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l6">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 12 Provisional arrest warrants</title>
<title id="l7">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 15 Remand</title>
<title id="l8">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Determination of eligibility for surrender</title>
<title id="l9">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 21 Review of magistrate's order</title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 682">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 682">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 682">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 682">retail tenancies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 682">lease negotiations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">international sale of perishable goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">whether exporter was an agent for sale for a grower or a buyer for resale from the grower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">criteria for distinguishing the two relationships. contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">grower and exporter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">ongoing business relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">oral contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">exporter "passing on" price reductions for alleged defects in quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">whether contractually justified in so doing. sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">whether sale contracts were subject to the sale of goods act 1895 (sa) or the sale of goods (vienna convention) act 1986 (sa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">goods sold into singapore and hong kong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">singapore a party to the convention, but not hong kong.  sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">implied conditions as to quality and fitness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">sale for resale to overseas buyer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">defects alleged by overseas buyer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">liability of original seller to buyer for resale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">onus of proof.  pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">leave to amend defence sought at conclusion of final oral addresses after 16 day hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">a new implied contractual term proposed based on prior dealings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2008] FCA 1591">leave refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">master education services pty limited v ketchell  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">statute not complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">appellant franchisor contravened cl 11(1) of franchising code of conduct ("code") in entering into franchise agreement with respondent franchisee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">section 51ad of trade practices act 1974 (cth) ("tpa") provided that applicable industry codes must not be contravened by corporations in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">court of appeal of new south wales held franchise agreement to be unenforceable due to illegality at common law arising from contravention of code and s 51ad</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">whether contravention of code and s 51ad resulted in illegality and unenforceability of franchise agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 38">whether legislative purpose of pt ivb of tpa could be fulfilled without franchise agreement being unenforceable in light of remedies available in pt vi for contravention of s 51ad.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">sst consulting services pty limited v rieson  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">trade practices act 1974 (cth) ("tpa"), s 47(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">loan agreement obliged borrower to acquire services of a particular kind from third persons specified by the lender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">lender thereby engaged in "exclusive dealing" in breach of s 47(1) of the tpa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">guarantors of loan sought to avoid enforcement of guarantee on basis that contract was void and unenforceable for illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">whether contract void or unenforceable for illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">relevance of other forms of relief available under ss 87 and 87a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">whether severance an exceptional form of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">whether tpa, s 4l permitted or required severance of the prohibited provision.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">structure and meaning of s 4l</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">whether s 4l engaged common law "rules" of severance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">whether identifiable "rules" of severance existed at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">relevance of rules of severance devised and applied in other contexts.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">statutory context of s 4l</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">objects and purpose of the tpa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">relevance of legislative history of s 4l</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 31">relevance of report of committee (swanson committee) appointed to review legislation prior to introduction of s 4l.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">alleged forcing of third party's services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">hire of concert venues to promoter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">management of venues contracting with third party (bass) for ticketing services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">management insisting to promoter that venues take responsibility for ticket sales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">whether any services provided by bass to promoter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">whether conduct authorised or approved by victorian legislation.  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">immunity from statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">whether national tennis centre trust, olympic park management and victorian arts centre trust come under shield of the crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1990] FCA 163">whether they are 'related corporations'.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">false or misleading statements as to price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">statements made in course of negotiations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">not with the applicant but with third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">reliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">causation.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">failure to disclose material circumstances to purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">fiduciary duty relied on as source of obligation to disclose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">silence as misleading or deceptive conduct.  company law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">prescribed interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">obligations of trustee and manager in relation to undertaking or enterprise pursuant to which prescribed interests offered to public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">promoters of such undertakings or enterprises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">obligations of such promoters.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">fiduciary duties allegedly arising in the course of commercial negotiations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">criteria for determining existence and incidents of such duties.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">rectification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">need for outward expression of accord between the parties as well as common intention.  trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">nature of liability for debts incurred in conduct of the trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[1987] FCA 332">exclusion of personal liability of trustee.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">brewer selling beer to retailers on delivered basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">requirement of delivery by particular carrier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">contract between carrier and brewer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">whether retailer "acquires" carrier's services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">contract for supply of goods and services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">whether third line forcing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 72">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4(1) , 4c, 47 (1), (6), (7).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether publication of statements including statements of opinions made in ordinary course of publication of news (not being advertising material) can constitute misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of material constituting conduct for purposes of sub-s. 52(1) of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of incorrect information constituting misleading or deceptive conduct only if conduct contains or conveys a misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">some articles of news more readily to be taken as statements by newspaper than others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">disadvantages of stated case procedure.  trade practices act 1974 , ss. 4(2) , 80 , 52 (1), 53 (e), 82 , 84 85 (3), 87  federal court of australia act 1976 , sub-s. 25(6)  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of statements including statements of opinion in ordinary course of publication of newspaper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether statements convey misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 4(2). held: (1) publication of statements, including statements of opinion, made in the ordinary course of the publication of a newspaper can constitute misleading and deceptive conduct within the trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52. there is no definable boundary between conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive and material which is defamatory; defamatory material does not fall outside the operation of s. 52(1) merely by reason of its being defamatory.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">conduct likely to mislead or deceive to whether conducting restaurant under a name similar to that of another restaurant was such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">whether reputation in another country is relevant.  passing-off.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 125">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 125">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 125">offer by credit union to credit account of member with rebate if member made booking through particular travel agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 125">whether crediting of rebate provision of "services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 125">whether offer by credit union to provide rebate made on condition that member "will" deal with travel agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 125">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 , 47 (6). section 47 (1) of the trade practices act prohibits a corporation from engaging in the practice of exclusive dealing in trade or commerce; and s. 47 (6) provides that a corporation engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">terminating building societies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">whether trading or financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">exemption by state regulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">whether state legislative authorization specific</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">whether activity "in trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">nature of condition of supply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">whether acts done in concert against suppliers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">trade practices act 1974 (cth.), ss. 4 , 47 (1), (6), 51 (1)(b), 163a (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">the constitution (63  64 vict., c. 12), s. 51 (xx)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">co-operation act, 1973 (n.s.w.), s. 82</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">co-operatives regulations, 1961, reg. 35a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1978] FCA 50">trade practices (removal of exceptions) regulations 1975, reg. 3. the applicants sought declaratory relief, pursuant to the trade practices act 1974 ("the act ") as to the operation and effect of the act in relation to a practice of imposing, in respect of loans which each applicant made to its members, a requirement that the property mortgaged to secure repayment of the loan be insured with a nominated insurer. the commission took the view that the practice contravened the exclusive dealing provisions in s. 47 of the act and proposed to institute proceedings under the act against the applicants in the event of it obtaining evidence of such a practice in the future.  the applicants were co-operative terminating building societies incorporated under the co-operation act, 1923 (n.s.w.). the object of each was the raising of a fund so as to make loans to its members.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">incorporated trading co-operative society</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">requirement as condition of supply of radio service that members acquire petrol directly or indirectly from a second person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">supply on condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">trade practices act 1974 , ss. 4 , 47 (1), (4), 51 , 76</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">trade practices act 1974 , (as amended) ss. 4 , 47 (6), (13) (a), 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">acts interpretation act 1901 , s. 23</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1978] FCA 47">co-operation act, 1923 (n.s.w.), ss. 9, 60, 77, 82, reg. 32 (2c). the applicant in these proceedings sought the imposition of a penalty on the respondent under s. 76 of the trade practices act 1974 (the act) in respect of alleged breaches of s. 47 (1) of the act occuring before 1st july, 1977. it also applied under s. 80 for an injunction against the respondent in respect of conduct occuring since that date.  the respondent, legion cabs (trading) co-operative society ltd., is incorporated as a trading society under the co-operation act, 1923 (n.s.w.). the respondent has a number of members, the majority of whom are owner-members. these members own vehicles licensed to operate as taxis in sydney. the main activity of the respondent is to provide a radio service for its members so that communication can be maintained with the drivers. the respondent also operated, at the relevant time, two service stations where members could obtain petrol.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">whether proceeding properly commenced under s 33c of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">whether proceedings raise a substantial common issue of law or fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">amendment to definition of group membership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">date from which amendment takes effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">whether representative proceeding will provide an efficient and effective means of dealing with the claims trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">exclusive dealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">obligation to acquire goods or services must have elements of compulsion and futurity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 106">trade practices act 1974 (cth) s 47(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">alleged third line forcing by telecommunications companies ( telcos )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">telcos allegedly offered to give (and gave) call credits on the condition that the customer would lease (and leased) equipment from a third party finance company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">telcos allegedly chose the finance company from a panel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether "another person" includes the plural</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether "another person" requires specified person/s</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether finance companies were knowingly concerned in telcos' contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">essential elements of the contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">knowledge of telcos' business method and of condition that equipment must be leased from a specified finance company or companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether bundle was a single package</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">call credits were given after lease agreement was approved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">futurity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">compulsion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">giving of call credits to customers who had already entered lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether future acquisition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">customer's awareness of the condition  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">applications by respondents for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">application for strike out of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether pleading tends to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.21">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">leave to replead</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.22">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether pleading of business method appropriate</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 106" id="cs0">It may be sufficient to enliven the operation of s 47(6) that the condition be attached to the supply of the goods or services at the instigation of a person other than the supplier of the goods, as for example where the condition is imposed at the instigation of the third party from whom the person is required to acquire the other goods or services: see Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Bill Express (in liq) [2009] FCA 1022 ; (2009) 180 FCR 105 at [61] ; see also the Ku-ring-gai case at 167. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 919" id="cs1">The legislative history demonstrates that Parliament's concern in s 47(6) and s 47(7) was with anti-competitive conduct. In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Bill Express Ltd (in liq) [2009] FCA 1022 ; (2009) 180 FCR 105 at [52] ---[56], Gordon J summarised the history of s 47(6) and amendments that have been made to it, referring in particular to the fact that there has been no amendment to import the substantial lessening of competition test into third line forcing, despite repeated consideration and recommendations to the contrary. The Commission contends that this supports its submission, as considered in Heydon's Trade Practices Law , that s 47(6) should not be presumed to be concerned with competition, but may be concerned to protect interests other than or additional to competition. Even if the imposed condition is that goods or services be acquired from other persons who are themselves in sufficient competition such that the condition does not have the effect of substantially lessening competition, this does not preclude a contravention of s 47(6). </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">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 47 Oral, video link, telephone and affidavit evidence</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">TRADE PRACTICES LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 1) 2006 (NO. 131, 2006) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1544">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1544">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1544">whether criticisms of a litigant in a previous decision are a basis for disqualification in separate proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">john fairfax publications pty ltd v gacic  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">interpretation of supreme court act 1970 (nsw) ("supreme court act")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">section 108(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">defamation action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">appeal challenging findings of a jury made under s 7a(3) of the defamation act 1974 (nsw) ("defamation act") on specific issues put to the jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">powers of an appeal court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff on such issues in the event of a successful appeal.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">"may"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">appeal challenging findings of a jury on specific issues in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">whether supreme court act , s 108(3) confers a power, with a duty to exercise that power once the relevant entitlement to a verdict on any issue in the proceedings is established as a matter of law.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">supreme court act , s 108(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">defamation act , s 7a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">defamation action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">jury found that there were imputations conveyed but that those imputations were not defamatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">role of the jury in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">whether the court of appeal must order a new trial where it holds that a jury's answers to issues put to the jury in defamation proceedings are unreasonable.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">business defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">nature of the test for defamation where a plaintiff alleges damage to business reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">procedure in jury trials in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2007] HCA 28">application of defamation act , s 108(3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">jury trial under s 7a of the defamation act 1974 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">unreasonable verdicts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">appellate intervention warranted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">verdict entered by appellate court in favour of appellant appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">error in inviting jury to consider whether an imputation involved an inference upon an inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">question one of capacitydefamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">person injured in business, trade or professionjury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">directions to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">inadequate directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">clear directions needed to overcome misleading or irrelevant matters in counsel's address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">interfering with jury verdict</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">imputations plainly defamatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 175">no reasonable jury properly directed could find otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">csr limited v eddy  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">asbestos-related disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">compensation for plaintiff's inability to provide domestic assistance to wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">whether damages are recoverable where a personal injury prevents a plaintiff from providing gratuitous personal or domestic services for another person (" sullivan v gordon damages")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">whether sullivan v gordon damages are analogous to griffiths v kerkemeyer damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">whether sullivan v gordon should be accepted as part of the common law of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">whether sullivan v gordon damages could be recovered for those years in which services may have been provided after the plaintiff's death up until the expected date of death but for the tort.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">resolution of legal point</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">relevance of recurrent litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 64">relevance of plaintiff with no interest in legal position beyond litigation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 21">commissioner of taxation v stone  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 21">income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 21">whether taxpayer turned her athletic talent to account for money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 21">whether receipt of prize money, government grants, appearance fees and sponsorship payments constitute assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 21">whether income derived from conduct of a "business"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 21">whether conduct of business a relevant consideration.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">husher v husher  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">personal injuries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">quantification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">loss of future earning capacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">husband and wife partnership at will</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">equal division of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">no significant contribution by wife to partnership's business activity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 47">whether loss of future earning capacity calculated by reference to plaintiff's past share of partnership profits.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">contract for coating gas pipes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">part of contract price attributed to cost of constructing plant to enable coating to be carried out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 25">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 25(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">composition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">application to declare void whether s.109 priorities applicable to composition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">whether creditors entitled to agree to priorities.  bankruptcy act 1966 ss.109 , 187 , 204 , 213, 218 , 222 , 238, 239, 243.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">arrangements without sequestration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">composition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">provision for payment in full of debts with statutory priority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">whether void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">whether creditors entitled to agree to priorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 31">bankruptcy act, 1966 (cth), ss 109 , 187 (1)(b), 243(1). held: (1) the essence of a composition under the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) s. 187(1)(b) , as between the debtor and the general body of creditors, is that all creditors be accorded equal treatment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">payments pursuant to motor accidents act 1973 (vic.), s. 25 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">compensation for "loss of income in capacity of employee"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">whether income or capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">comparison with common law damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth.), s. 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 88">motor accidents act 1973 (vic.), ss. 13, 20, 21, 25, 32, 79. the taxpayer received payments under the motor accidents act 1973 (vic.). she had been injured in a motor car accident and had "suffered a loss of income in the capacity of employee by reason of the injury" (s.25 (1) of the motor accidents act ). she received $2,371.20 in twenty-two payments over about nine months. the commissioner assessed her on the payments as income. for the taxpayer, it was argued that the payments were of a capital nature because they were compensation for a loss of earning capacity. jenkinson j. of the supreme court of victoria held that the payments were assessable as income. the taxpayer appealed.  held, dismissing the appeal, that an analysis of the motor accident act indicated that the payments were for the purpose of providing partial recoupment of lost income. furthermore, from the taxpayer's point of view, the periodic receipt of the payments suggested that they were of an income nature.  hearing  melbourne, 1979, august 2-3; december 14. 14:12:1979</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">wrongful dismissal from employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">effect of liability for taxation on quantum of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">whether damages should be reduced by tax plaintiff would have paid in respect of earnings if he had not been dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">compensation paid by compulsion of law in consequence of termination of employment taxable as to 5 per cent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">whether 95 per cent of damages subject to reduction for tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">gourley principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 26 (d), * (j).  practice (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">interest on judgment for damages from commencement of action until entry of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">damages for wrongful dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">damages calculated at date of judgment in respect of future period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">supreme court act 1958 (vict.), s. 79a.  privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">appeals from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">decision involving application or interpretation of a law made by the parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">privy council (limitation of appeals) act 1968 (cth), s. 3 (b).   *section 26 of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth) provides: "the assessable income of a taxpayer shall include</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">cited from="[1978] HCA 37">. . . (d) five per centum of the capital amount of any allowance, gratuity or compensation where that amount is paid in a lump sum in consequence of retirement from, or termination of, any office or employment, of whether so paid voluntarily, by agreement or by compulsion of law . . . . "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">innuendo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">whether capable of being defamatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">imputation concerning a person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">whether imputation must relate to act or conduct of the person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">work of fiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">whether capable of concerning plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1975] HCA 6">defamation act, 1958 (n.s.w.), s. 5.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1961] HCA 48">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1961] HCA 48">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1961] HCA 48">matters to be considered in reduction of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1961] HCA 48">pension payable on compulsory retirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1961] HCA 48">sick leave payments.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">damage to appellant's grazing property by fire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">appellant plaintiff in action for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">lump sum paid by defendant in full settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">calculated by defendant from his own list of items of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">method of calculation not revealed to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">amount received as lump sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">certain items in defendant's list in the nature of income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">claim that whole or part of amount paid assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1961] HCA 9">income tax and social services contribution assessment act 1936-1955 (cth), ss. 17, 26 (j), 59.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">misleading or deceptive conduct under s 1041h</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">public disclosures made as to the binding legal effect of agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">whether conduct in relation to a financial product or a financial service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">relevance of belief or opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">relevance of context at the time disclosures were made to market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">whether disclosures were misleading or deceptive   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">director's duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">whether director breached duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence required by s 180(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">whether disclosure about legal effect of agreements was honest and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">legal advice obtained consistent with belief.   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">allegations of dishonesty no reasonable evidentiary basis for such allegations   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">standard of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">briginshaw standard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">prescription of civil standard of proof in a civil penalty proceeding by s 1332 of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">prescription of balance of probabilities as standard of proof in a civil proceeding by s 140 evidence act 1995    evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">applicability of rule in jones v dunkel to civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">rule in browne v dunn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">consequences of failure to comply with rule in browne v dunn    evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">admissibility of transcripts of examinations under s 19 australian securities and investments commission act 2001</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">whether transcripts contain admissions    evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">citing from="[2009] FCA 1586">relevance of expert opinion of statisticians, stockbrokers and analysts in determining contraventions of continuous disclosure provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 190">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 190">taxpayer corporation receives award of damages for injury to business reputation by defamatory publications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 190">damages calculated by reference to taxpayer's loss of profits attributable to the defamatory publications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 190">whether damages received by the taxpayer constitute ' income according to ordinary concepts ' for the purposes of s 6-5 of the income tax assessment act 1997 (cth)  income tax assessment act 1997 (cth) s 6-5</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1586" id="cs0">Since Anaconda was decided by the Court of Appeal on 17 February 2000 it has been cited, considered or applied without disapproval in a number of contract law cases involving questions of incompleteness or uncertainty, for example: Duskwood Pty Ltd v Bellara Willows Pty Ltd [2001] per Steytler J at [95]; Liristis Holdings Pty Ltd v Wallville Pty Ltd [2001] NSWSC 428 per Barrett J at [38]; African Minerals Limited v Pan Palladium Limited [2003] NSWSC 268 per Einstein J at [26]; Thompson v White  Ors [2006] NSWCA 350 per Tobias JA with whom Ipp and McColl JJA agreed at [100]; Tasman Capital Pty Ltd v Sinclair [2008] NSWCA 248 per Giles JA with whom McColl JA and Young CJ in EQ agreed at [27]-[28]; Donald Fin Enterprises Pty Ltd v APIR Systems Ltd [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 67 ACSR 219 per Edmonds J at [131]-[132]; Strzelecki Holdings Pty Ltd v Cable Sands Pty Ltd [No 3] [2009] WASC 352 per Murray J at [90]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 190" id="cs1">1 The question on appeal may be simply stated: are compensatory damages for defamation received by a corporation "income according to ordinary concepts" and assessable under s 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (Cth) ("the ITAA97") if calculated solely by reference to lost profits attributable to the defamatory publications? The learned primary judge answered that question in the negative, allowing the appeal of the respondent taxpayer, Sydney Refractive Surgery Centre Pty Ltd ("SRSC"), against the disallowance of its objection to the decision of the appellant, the Commissioner of Taxation ("the Commissioner"), that the sum of $812,726.00 received by SRSC in compensatory damages for defamation was assessable: Sydney Refractive Surgery Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313. We agree the answer to the question presented is no. Whether a payment of compensatory damages is assessable must be determined by looking to the nature of the cause of action in respect of which the payment is made, rather than the way in which damages are calculated. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed with costs.  10 In the meantime, the proper test was and remains to look at the character of the payment in the hands of the taxpayer: [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [45] and the authorities there cited. For an award of damages, that in turn requires an examination of the nature of the claim or cause of action in respect of which the payment was made. It is settled that an award of damages for personal injuries is not taxable: [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [65] and authorities there cited.  10 In the meantime, the proper test was and remains to look at the character of the payment in the hands of the taxpayer: [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [45] and the authorities there cited. For an award of damages, that in turn requires an examination of the nature of the claim or cause of action in respect of which the payment was made. It is settled that an award of damages for personal injuries is not taxable: [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [65] and authorities there cited.  This would deny finality to the party liable for the damages, because the full extent of the liability might not be known for years. Secondly, acceptance of the Commissioner's contention would encourage plaintiffs to withhold evidence and reframe damages claims in ways that might reduce the accuracy of the awards. Rather than leading evidence and making claims calculated by reference to lost profits, plaintiffs would have an interest in asking the courts to make at large awards based on estimates and undifferentiated lump sum awards encompassing both economic and non-economic loss so that they could avoid taxes: [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [43] , [56]. Encouraging the calculation or specification of damages with less accuracy is not in the interests of the parties or of justice generally. Finally, the adoption of a fuzzy standard would increase the work of the Commissioner and the courts - many cases would lead to a private ruling request as to assessability or an objection decision, as well as possible requests for judicial review. 14 In contrast, an injury that does not impair the plaintiff corporation's ability to earn, but instead simply frustrates its receipt of certain moneys (ie reduces its revenue) will be assessable. For example, suppose B trespasses on A's factory grounds, erecting a roadblock so that raw materials cannot be delivered, and A claims damages in respect of the diminished output (ie for the loss of use of the factory during the period of the roadblock). Or suppose that A has a contract for the supply of widgets by B, but C tortiously interferes and prevents the delivery, and A then claims damages based on the resale price of the widgets. In those cases, a damages award is not only measured by lost profits but is for lost profits (ie a substitute for revenue not received), and will therefore be assessable as income. This is the principle to be gleaned from London and Thames Haven Oil Wharves Ltd v Attwooll [1967] 2 All ER 124 , and Liftronic Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 66 FCR 175. However, as the learned primary judge correctly noted ((2008) [2008] FCA 454 ; 247 ALR 313 at [72] - [76]), that principle does not apply here because a claim for defamation damages based on an injury to business reputation is a claim, regardless of how measured, for compensation for lost earning capacity resulting from damage to a capital asset.  12 We do not accept the Commissioner's proposed distinction because it fails to give sufficient, or even any, proper consideration to the injury for which compensation is being paid. Instead, we agree with the learned trial judge that an award of damages in a defamation claim "is, in point of principle, for impairment of the plaintiff's earning capacity and not for loss of income as such": [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [69] . To put it another way, a corporation's business reputation, although not precisely the same as its goodwill, is in the nature of a capital asset: United States v Kaiser [1960] USSC 93 ; 363 US 299 , 311 (1960) (acknowledging that the relevant principle remains that compensation for an injury to something that is not a part of gross income is not taxable, notwithstanding any difficulties in the application of that principle to something like reputation which is not an ordinary capital asset); Welch v Helvering [1933] USSC 140 ; 290 US 111 , 115 (1933) (Cardozo J) ("Reputation and learning are akin to capital assets, like the good will of an old partnership. "); Z-Tel Communications Inc v SBC Communications Inc 331 FSupp2d 513 , 533 (ED Tex 2004) ("Reputation is a very real capital asset to a business firm. ") citing Richard A Posner , Economic Analysis of Law at 230 (5 th ed, 1998) ("[R]eputation is a basis for inducing others to engage in market or nonmarket transactions with you. "); see also Tourism Holdings Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxes (2007) 210 FLR 80 at [23] ("A company's good reputation in an area where it does not carry on business is like a capital asset which has yet to be put to work. "); Upenieks v Canada [1995] 1 CTC 8D at [4]-[5] (acknowledging that professional reputation is a capital asset); Whyte v Morin [2008] BCWLD 3470 at [80] (finding that professional reputation is a capital asset and that injury to reputation impairs future earning capacity).  3 In the Supreme Court proceedings, the jury found that the defendants had defamed SRSC by publishing false and misleading statements in April and May 1998 about the nature and quality of laser eye surgery services provided by SRSC. After a separate hearing on quantum which was concluded in 2004, Studdert J assessed damages on a lost profits basis by: (1) determining the number of surgical procedures that SRSC would have performed but for the adverse impact of the defamatory publications; (2) multiplying that number by the average gross revenue per procedure to establish the total lost gross revenue; (3) subtracting the costs that would have been incurred by SRSC in performing those procedures in order to establish the total lost net revenue; and (4) subtracting the amount that SRSC would have had to pay in taxes on that net revenue in order to determine total lost profits. Although SRSC also put its damages case on a reduction in value (ie lost goodwill) basis, the trial judge noted that SRSC had stopped trading in 1999 and that, in the absence of any sale of the business, there was insufficient evidence of a loss in capital value: [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [23] .  5 As the primary judge in this case noted, if the Commissioner's position as to the assessability of the remaining sum were accepted, it would lead to a result inconsistent with the Supreme Court judgment and would mean, in effect, that SRSC would have to pay tax twice. Although this unfortunate possibility of inconsistent judgments does not eventuate here given the view we have formed, the fact that it exists at all is less than satisfactory. We therefore adopt the primary judge's observation that "[t]his case may be a further illustration of the need to consider procedural changes designed to enable a court to determine the impact of taxation on a damages award once and for all and to encourage the parties to take steps in an appropriate case to ensure that this is done": [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [10] .  2 The relevant facts are not in dispute and were set out at length by the primary judge: [2008] FCA 454 ; (2008) 247 ALR 313 at [11] - [38]. On appeal, only a brief summary is required. On 18 March 2004, the Supreme Court of New South Wales entered judgment for $844,624.00 ("the sum") on a jury verdict in favour of SRSC for defamation: Sydney Refractive Eye Surgery Centre Pty Ltd v Beaumont [2004] NSWSC 164. That sum was paid to SRSC in the 2004 tax year. After the Commissioner included the sum (less $31,898 allowed as costs) as assessable income, SRSC objected. When that objection was disallowed, SRSC instituted these proceedings. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l1">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 6 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 166A Deemed assessment</title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">DEFAMATION ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l6">DEFAMATION ACT 1974 - SECT 4 Repeal of Defamation Act 1958</title>
<title id="l7">DEFAMATION ACT 1974 - SECT 6 Act binds Crown</title>
<title id="l8">DEFAMATION ACT 1974 - SECT 7A Functions of judge and jury</title>
<title id="l9">DEFAMATION ACT 1974 - SECT 26 Defeat of defence under secs 24, 25</title>
</legistitles>
</case>