Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 667">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1425">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1425">application for leave to proceed against company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1425">principles applicable to grant of leave</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 667" id="cs0">As Glenhurst was a company in liquidation, the Applicant sought leave nunc pro tunc to begin and proceed with the proceedings pursuant to s 471B of the Act. On 16 September 2008, Finkelstein J granted the Applicant leave: Goodman v Glenhurst Corporation Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1482. As his Honour noted in paragraph [3] of his reasons for decision, "the reason the [A]pplicant seeks leave to bring an action against an insolvent company is that [Glenhurst] has insurance cover which may indemnify it in respect to the claims being advanced by the Applicant and the group members. " The insurer was QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited (ACN 003 191 035) ( QBE ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1425" id="cs1">The principles applicable to the grant of leave, pursuant to s 500(2) CA, or in similar positions of insolvency, are canvassed in a number of authorities, which are collected, very conveniently, by Jacobson J in Altinova Nominees Pty Ltd v Leveraged Capital Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) (No 2) [2009] FCA 42 (at [17]-[23] of that decision. In Goodman v Glenhurst Corporation Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1482 , Finkelstein J took the view that the Court is required to be satisfied that the applicant's claim was sufficiently serious to be allowed to proceed. The underlying theory for that was that the liquidator should not be vexed with the obligation to fight a hopeless case and incur unnecessary expenditure. His Honour went on to consider the details involved in that proceeding and noted that he had not formed any firm view about the merits but was satisfied that the claim in that instance, both on behalf of the applicant and the then respondent, for indemnity against the insurer, had a solid foundation. Nevertheless, he anticipated that the claims would be hotly disputed. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 50 ASIC may cause civil proceeding to be begun</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 471B Stay of proceedings and suspension of enforcement process</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 562 Application of proceeds of contracts of insurance</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 912A General obligations</title>
<title id="l6">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l7">INSURANCE CONTRACTS ACT 1984 - SECT 40 Certain contracts of liability insurance</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2010] WADC 76">two purposes, neither dominant, both legal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] WADC 76" id="cs0">47 The third member of the Court, Merkel J, agreed with Finn and Stone JJ (370 [52]). This aspect of the decision in Pratt (FC) was applied in Re: Southland Coal Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq) [2006] NSWSC 899 ; (2006) 203 FLR 1 at 6; Quality Publications Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 1293 at [12] and Korean Air Lines Co Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (No 2) [2008] FCA 449 at [6] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">WORKPLACE RELATIONS REGULATIONS 2006 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">application for order under s 411(1) of corporations act 2001 (cth) that company convene meeting of members to consider proposed scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">term of scheme that "to the extent permitted by law" shares will vest in acquiring company free of interests of third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">discussion of such a term.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">application for order under s 411(1) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) that company convene meeting of its members to consider scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">consideration of particular factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">"no-shop restriction"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">"break fee"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">deemed warranty that shares are free from encumbrances and that shareholders are entitled to transfer them held : order made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] QSC 37">(respondent) file no: sc no bs913/2007 division: trial proceeding: originating application originating court: supreme court delivered on: 28 february 2007 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 9 february 2007 judge: fryberg j order: as in annexure a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] QSC 207">(second respondent) file no: sc no bs913 of 2007 division: trial proceeding: originating application court: supreme court delivered at: brisbane hearing and judgment date: 24 april 2007 reasons delivered on: 22 august 2007 judge: fryberg j order: 1) pursuant to subsections 411(4)(b) and 411(6) of the corporations act 2001 (cth), the scheme of arrangement between the applicant and its shareholders, having been duly agreed to in accordance with section 411(4)(a)(i) of the act at meetings of the shareholders of the applicant, be approved, subject to the following alteration, namely the deletion from the definition of "second court date" in clause 1.1 of the words "the first day on which an application made to the court for a scheme order under paragraph 411(4)(b) of the corporations act is heard" , and the insertion in their place of the words " the day on which the order is made under paragraph 411(4)(b) of the corporations act approving the scheme with or without modification, " so that the scheme of arrangement so approved and altered is in the form annexed hereto and marked "a" 2) pursuant to section 411(12) of the corporations act 2001 , the applicant be exempted from compliance with section 411(11) in relation to the order at paragraph 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1203">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1203">compromise or arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1203">"no encumbrances" clause in scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1203">whether court should approve scheme containing a provision that shares will be transferred free of all encumbrances. held : scheme approved subject to deletion of the "no encumbrances" clause.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1187">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1187">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1187">first court hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1187">deal protection clauses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1187">whether bidder's last right of offer clause anti-competitive to bidding process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1187">discretionary dividend payable on shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1187">methods of valuation of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">arrangements and reconstruction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">scheme for acquisition of stapled securities consisting of shares in a company and units of two managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">acquisition to be achieved by part 5.1 scheme and amendment of constitutions of managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">consideration consisting of partnership interests in bermuda limited partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">certain foreign holders to receive wholly cash consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">other holders may elect to receive cash instead of partnership interests but limited to 4,000 such interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">whether these provisions are class-creating</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1104">whether s 411(17) implications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">orders convening meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 411</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 367">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 367">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 367">orders convening meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 367">considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] VSC 367">role of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] VSC 367">exclusivity clauses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] VSC 367">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 411.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 10">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 10">corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 10">s 411</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 10">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 10">application for orders approving company convening meeting of members and optionholders to consider proposed schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">merger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">application for meeting under s.411(1) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">factors to consider at meeting stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">independent expert's opinion of the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">performance risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">exclusivity period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">no-talk and no shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">deemed warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">information for shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">ss.411 and 412 corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">judge : davies j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 4 december 2009 date of judgment: 8 december 2009 case may be cited as : re cytopia ltd medium neutral citation : [2009] vsc 560 first revision on 10 december 2009</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">merger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">application for meeting under s.411(1) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">factors to consider at meeting stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">independent expert's opinion of the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.17">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">performance risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.18">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">exclusivity period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.19">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">no-talk and no shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.20">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">deemed warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.21">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">information for shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.22">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">ss.411 and 412 corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">schemes to effect a takeover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">approval of the distribution of the scheme booklet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">expert's report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">whether offer "fair" where on upper range of valuation the consideration value is less than the target share value</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">asic regulatory guide 111</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">takeover bids</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">range of values</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">asic rg 111.9, rg 110.10, rg 111.11, rg 111.62 and rg 111.63</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">sections 411(1) , 412 (6) and 412 (8) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">compromises and arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">proposal for interlinked schemes of arrangement and amendment of managed investment scheme constitution so that "stapled securities" acquired by outside party for cash</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">applications for orders under corporations act, s 411(1) and for judicial advice under trustee act 1925 , s 63</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">whether potential voting restriction affecting one security holder should be addressed at this stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">where consideration variable but formula fixed and quantum will be ascertained and notified before meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">where security holders will be subjected to warranty that securities free from encumbrance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">whether one holder constitutes separate class for scheme purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">"no shop", "no talk" and "break fee" provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">whether court should at convening stage consider avoidance question posed by s 411(17)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">meaning of that provision discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2008] NSWSC 323">need for explanatory statement to set out scheme conditions precedent in full</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">application for order under s 411(1) that company convene meeting of members to consider proposed scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">consideration of performance risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">"no stop" and "no talk provisions"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">"break fee" clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 64">deemed warranty</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1187" id="cs0">I am otherwise satisfied, for the reasons referred to in Mr Oakes's written opening submissions, which I will mark MFI1, that all of the necessary evidence is before me in accordance with the approach taken by Gyles J in Re Orion Telecommunications Limited [2007] FCA 1389 at [5] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 1104" id="cs1">

23 For reasons explained in earlier cases, it is premature for the court to seek to come to any conclusion on that matter at this stage: Re Orion Telecommunications Ltd [2007] FCA 1389 ; Re Macquarie Private Capital A Ltd [2008] NSWSC 323 ; (2008) 26 ACLC 366 ; Re Macquarie Capital Alliance Ltd [2008] NSWSC 745 ; (2008) 67 ACSR 484 ; compare Mincom Ltd v EAM Software Finance Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 37 ; (2007) 61 ASR 266. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 423" id="cs2">10 Clause 4.5 of the Mitchell Scheme provides that each Scheme Participant warrants to Aegis that their Scheme Shares are free from encumbrances. The view consistently taken by courts in recent times is that a deemed warranty clause is unobjectionable as the purpose and effect of the deemed warranty clause is simply to ensure that a scheme participant whose shares are subject to an encumbrance is not unfairly advantaged. [2] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 367" id="cs3">The particular provisions are:

 (i) A deemed warranty provision

 12 The proposed scheme provides for a deemed warranty from the Healthscope shareholders that their shares are free from encumbrances. The view consistently taken by Courts in recent times is that a deemed warranty clause is unobjectionable as the purpose and effect of a deemed warranty clause is simply to ensure that a scheme participant whose shares are subject to an encumbrance is not unfairly advantaged. [8] In the circumstances, and consistently with the preponderance of authority, I do not regard the warranty clause as posing any issue in relation to the Court exercising its power to convene the meeting. 13 I am also satisfied that there is adequate disclosure of this provision in the explanatory booklet. [9]
(ii) Exclusivity Provisions
14 Healthscope has agreed to certain restrictions on its ability to solicit or accept alternative proposals for a certain period.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 10" id="cs4">The evidence presented by the plaintiff in support of its application was comprehensive. I am satisfied that the elements needed to be proved in a first court hearing in relation to a scheme under the Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act , as accepted by Gyles J in Orion Telecommunications Limited, in the matter of Orion Telecommunications Limited [2007] FCA 1389 at [5] have been established by that evidence. In particular the evidence established that ASIC had had a reasonable opportunity to examine the proposed scheme and explanatory statement and was given the requisite notice of the proposed date of the first court hearing. The fact that the plaintiff and Orion have entered into the Merger Implementation Agreement indicates that the Scheme is bona fide and has been properly proposed. The factual information in the Scheme booklet has been verified on behalf of the plaintiff and, where relevant, on behalf of Orion. Proper arrangements have been proposed for the conduct of the meeting including Mr Munns' consent to act as chairman and Mr Yue's agreement to be the alternate chairman. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 560" id="cs5">[30] I note that the deemed warranty clause is disclosed in s.8.2 of the Scheme Booklet and I accept the submission that it is no obstacle to the Court ordering the convening of a meeting.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 745" id="cs6">49 No issue was raised as to whether evidence should be adduced on the question whether the Australian members' scheme was proposed for the purpose of avoiding the operation of Chapter 6, although there is in fact some evidence on that subject in Mr Moss's affidavit. On that subject, I respectfully agree with the observations of Barrett J in Macquarie Private Capital A Ltd [2008] NSWSC 323 , at [24]ff, and the observations of Gyles J in Orion Telecommunications Ltd [2007] FCA 1389 at [5] (cf Mincom Ltd v EAM Software Finance Pty Ltd [2007] QSC 37 ; (2007) 61 ACSR 266).

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 154" id="cs7">[12]

 Deemed warranty

(10) Clause 8.6 of the Share Scheme states that:

Each Scheme Participant is deemed to have warranted to [Incitec US Holdings] that all of their Scheme Shares (including any rights and entitlements attaching to those shares) will, at the date of the transfer of them to [Incitec US Holdings], be fully paid and free from all mortgages, charges, liens, encumbrances and interests of third parties of any kind, whether legal or otherwise, and restrictions on transfer of any kind, and that they have full power and capacity to sell and to transfer their Scheme Shares together with any rights and entitlements attaching to such shares. (11) This type of clause was strongly criticised by Fryberg J in Mincom No 1 [13] as being:

onerous, unreasonable and calculated to catapult unsuspecting shareholders who have not read the small print of the arrangement in the schedule to the explanatory statement into a statement of breach of warranty. (12) However, the subsequent line of authorities, including APN, Adelaide Bank, [14] Re Orion Telecommunications Ltd [15] , Coles Group No 1 [16] and Re Hostworks Group Ltd, [17] consider such clauses to be acceptable as long as the warranty is sufficiently disclosed in the explanatory statement to shareholders. (13) Having regard to the disclosure made in section 1.11 of the draft Scheme Booklet, we submit that this deemed warranty clause is acceptable. Performance Risk

(14) Some recent court cases have raised the issue of 'performance risk' --- ie, the danger that the bidding company may be, or may become, unwilling or unable to meet its obligations to pay the cash consideration component to the transferor shareholders.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] NSWSC 323" id="cs8">25 That approach is somewhat at odds with the approaches that had been taken to that point. These were generally as outlined by Gyles J in Orion Telecommunications Limited [2007] FCA 1389 at [5] :

 "Counsel has correctly summarised what needs to be proved as follows:

 (a) The plaintiff is a ' Part 5.1 body'. (b) The proposed scheme is an 'arrangement' within the meaning of s 411. (c) There has been proper disclosure to members. (d) The scheme is bona fide and properly proposed. (e) The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) has had reasonable opportunity to examine the proposed scheme and explanatory statement, to make submissions and has had 14 days' notice of the proposed hearing date of the first court hearing --- see generally s 411(2). (f) Any other procedural requirements have been met, eg r 3.2 as to nomination of chairperson for scheme meeting. "  I share the understanding of his Honour that the purpose and effect of such a clause is simply to ensure that a scheme participant whose shares are subject to an encumbrance is not unfairly advantaged. The amount of the damages payable for breach of the warranty would be equal to the amount required to discharge the encumbrance. I note that the approach of Lindgren J has been preferred in subsequent cases, including by Robson J in Re Coles Group Ltd [2007] VSC 389 at [45] ; by Lander J in Re Adelaide Bank Ltd [2007] FCA 1582 at [33] ; and by Gyles J in Orion Telecommunications Ltd [2007] FCA 1389 at [9] . " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 64" id="cs9">41 Under cl 7.3(a) of the Implementation Agreement, each scheme participant is deemed to have warranted that all of its shares in Hostworks which are transferred under the scheme will be free from all mortgages and encumbrances. Fryberg J in Re Mincom Ltd (No 3) (2007) 25 ACLC 207 , regarded an almost identical deemed warranty clause as onerous and unreasonable and "calculated to catapult unsuspecting shareholders who have not read the small print of the arrangement in the schedule to the explanatory statement into a state of breach of warranty": at [21]. In Re APN News  Media Ltd [2007] FCA 770 ; 62 ACSR 400 , Lindgren J disagreed with the approach of Fryberg J: see at [59]-[62]. I respectfully agree with and adopt the views of Lindgren J. I share the understanding of his Honour that the purpose and effect of such a clause is simply to ensure that a scheme participant whose shares are subject to an encumbrance is not unfairly advantaged. The amount of the damages payable for breach of the warranty would be equal to the amount required to discharge the encumbrance. I note that the approach of Lindgren J has been preferred in subsequent cases, including by Robson J in Re Coles Group Limited [2007] VSC 389 at [45] ; by Lander J in Re Adelaide Bank Limited [2007] FCA 1582 at [33] ; and by Gyles J in Orion Telecommunications Ltd [2007] FCA 1389 at [9] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1545" id="cs10">On 4 September 2007 I gave reasons for those orders ( Orion Telecommunications Limited, in the matter of Orion Telecommunications Limited [2007] FCA 1389).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">special rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">s 24(2)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">veteran ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his war-caused incapacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">not entitled to an earnings related rate of pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] AATA 69">decision affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">rate of pension payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">special rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">unpaid work previously undertaken by applicant became paid work subsequently</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">applicant prevented by war-caused disease alone from continuing to undertake that work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">applicant ceased to engage in remunerative work after his last paid employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">reason for ceasing last paid employment no longer operative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] AATA 1223">decision under review set aside.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 268">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 268">application for special rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 268">involuntary redundancy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 268">failure to satisfy s 24(1)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 268">decision affirmed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 268" id="cs0">The respondent relied upon the more recent decisions of Finn J, Repatriation Commission v Van Heteren [2003] FCA 888 ; (2003) 75 ALD 703 and Cadd v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 1024. His Honour considered s 24(1)(c) and whether a war-caused injury or disease alone rendered the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work, and the meaning of ceasing to engage in remunerative work in s 24(2)(a), respectively. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l3">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 19 Determination of claims and applications</title>
<title id="l4">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 24 Special rate of pension</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1587">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1587">mareva order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1587">orders ancillary to mareva order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1587">order made requiring disclosure of assets by way of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1587">principles for making mareva and ancillary orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1587">principles for granting leave to cross examine deponent of disclosure affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1587">whether leave to cross examine deponent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 802">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 802">application for extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal from mareva orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 802">failure to give satisfactory explanation for delay.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">order of primary judge to file affidavit disclosing assets in aid of mareva injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">primary judge dismissed application for a stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">present application for stay in the court's appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">whether to stay the order requiring affidavit disclosing assets pending the hearing and determination of an application for extension of time and leave to appeal against the decision of primary judge to grant a mareva injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">no application to stay mareva injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">application for stay dismissed. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">application for an extension of time and leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">whether application to be determined by a single judge or a full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 505">application to be heard by a single judge exercising the court's appellate jurisdiction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 270">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 270">application for leave to appeal from interlocutory decision of primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 270">need to demonstrate substantial injustice if leave refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 270">substantial injustice more likely where interlocutory decision concerns substantive interests of parties as opposed to decision concerning practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 270">public interest in preserving primary judge's power to supervise orderly preparation of matter for trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 270">orders for seizure of transitory materials directed to matters of practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 270">no substantial injustice demonstrated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 536">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 536">appeal against order dismissing motion seeking variation of orders as to mode of proof at trial of copyright infringement case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 536">effect of order as "shutting out" the applicants from adequate proof of copyright title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 536">case management system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 536">principles on which appellate court will interfere with directions given in the conduct of that system.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">anti-anti-suit injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">where arbitral proceedings brought in england and in rem proceedings brought in federal court of australia by same party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether action in rem constituted election to litigate rather than arbitrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">abandonment of right to arbitrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether right to arbitrate waived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether arbitration agreement rendered inoperative  arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">definition of agreement in writing under international arbitration act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">interpretation of art ii r 2 of the new york convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">meaning of 'contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">agreement formed by provision of bank guarantee arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">scope of arbitration clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">whether trade practices claim falls within scope of arbitration clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">where arbitration clause governed claims 'arising out of this contract' practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">continuation of anti-anti-suit injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">continuation of injunction to restrain the defendant from obtaining an injunction in a foreign court which would restrain the continuation of proceedings in the federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">where defendant threatening to take steps in english high court of justice to restrain proceedings in the federal court of australia  admiralty  maritime jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">arrest of vessel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">in personam claim  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">'agreement in writing' 'arbitration agreement' 'contained in an exchange of letters or telegrams' 'dispute arising out of this contract'  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] FCA 1112">that marine comandate's action in rem constituted an election to litigate rather than arbitrate and the arbitration agreement is therefore inoperative; that there was no 'agreement in writing' for the purposes of the international arbitration act 1974 (cth); the application for a stay and referral to arbitration be refused; that the trade practices claim by pan falls outside the scope of the arbitration agreement; that the federal court has jurisdiction to hear and determine pan's claim; and the interim injunction should continue to restrain the defendant from taking any steps in any court seeking to restrain the continuation of the current proceeding.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">ringrow pty ltd v bp australia pty ltd  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">agreement to purchase service station from distributor of fuel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">collateral agreement requiring fuel to be purchased exclusively from distributor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">breach of collateral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">termination of collateral agreement by distributor pursuant to contractual power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">option to buy back service station exercisable by distributor on termination of collateral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">whether option void and unenforceable as a penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">whether exercise of option oppressive or extravagant and unconscionable compared with genuine pre-estimate of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 71">relevance of proportionality to penalty questions.   gleeson cj, gummow, kirby, hayne, callinan and heydon jj. these appeals concern the effect of contracts by which each of ringrow pty ltd, ultimate fuel pty ltd and nader-one pty ltd bought service stations from bp australia pty ltd. the identical point arises in each appeal and it is convenient to confine analysis to the first appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">wilkie v gordian runoff limited  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">professional indemnity insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">directors and officers liability insurance policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">criminal proceedings instituted against appellant insured</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">following royal commission, appellant alleged to have permitted misleading information to be provided to company auditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">appellant claimed for advance payment of defence costs under insurance policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">availability of advance payment of insured's defence costs subject to respondent insurer not denying indemnity for a claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">respondent purported to deny indemnity relying on exclusion under the policy for losses arising from dishonest, fraudulent, criminal or malicious conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">exclusion enlivened only where conduct admitted by the insured or established to have occurred following adjudication by a court, tribunal or arbitrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">whether respondent had effectively denied indemnity for appellant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">whether stated reliance upon exclusion sufficient to deny indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 17">whether exclusion engaged in the circumstances.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 281">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 281">costs assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 281">proportionality between amount of verdict and amount assessed for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 281">application for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 281">considerable delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 281">argument on appeal not raised below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] NSWCA 281">where no reasonable prospect of having costs assessment reduced to any material extent. nd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">distributor of motor fuels also freehold owner of service stations operated by its franchisees or commissions agents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">sale of freehold service stations by distributor to existing franchisees or commission agents conditional upon right of re-purchase by distributor in event of default under collateral site agreement operating for 5 year period following purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">contractual prohibition upon purchases of fuel other than oil company's fuel during 5 year period following sale of freehold</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">breach occurring of contractual prohibition against sale of other than oil company's fuel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">consequential exercise of right of re-purchase by oil company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">whether terms of re-purchase constituted penalties and therefore re-purchases void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 206">scope of freehold purchaser's goodwill of service station business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">andar transport pty ltd v brambles limited  employer and employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">duty of care by employer to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">common law duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">safe system of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">relevance of corporate structure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where employee is director of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where employee responsible for day-to-day operation of the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where employee injured due to unsafe system of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where employee in part responsible for devising system of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">whether employer liable to employee for breach of duty committed by employee in his capacity as director of employer.  employer and employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">duty of care by employer to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">common law duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">safe system of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">meaning of "safe system of work"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where existing system of work had been in place for many years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">whether employer took reasonable steps in ensuring that a safe system of work was created and maintained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">whether length of time in which system of work has been used is relevant in assessing whether system is safe.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">indemnity clauses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">whether principles governing construction of contracts of guarantee also govern the construction of contracts of indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">whether indemnity clause to be construed in favour of the indemnifier.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">joint or several tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">contribution between tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">wrongs act 1958 (vic), ss 23b , 24 (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where appellant liable as employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where injured employee responsible for breach of duty by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">where damages previously reduced to account for contributory negligence of employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.27">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">whether previous apportionment based on contributory negligence relevant in assessing contribution under statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.28">cited from="[2004] HCA 28">whether previous apportionment based on contributory negligence is ground for exemption from contribution under s 24(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">commercial lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">contract of guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">tenant went into liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">action by landlord against guarantor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">orders for costs made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">whether respondent entitled to recover costs pursuant to contractual indemnity provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">supreme court act 1970 (nsw), s 76</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">supreme court rules (nsw), pt 52 r 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">construction of the terms of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">cross-appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">interest on costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 45">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">maggbury pty ltd v hafele australia pty ltd  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">contractual restraint upon use of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">restraint expressed to be perpetual</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">information disclosed in patent application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">proper construction of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">whether restraint to apply once information disclosed to public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">whether contract in restraint of trade.  restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">contractual restraint upon use of information concerning invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">whether confidentiality agreement constitutes an unenforceable contractual restriction on trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">whether the restraint imposed is more than that required to protect the interests of the parties.  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">confidentiality agreement between inventor and potential marketer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">substantial copying of invention found contrary to agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">whether injunction granted unacceptably wide</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">whether injunction would involve excessive supervision by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 70">permissible scope and duration of injunctive relief.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">chief commissioner of stamp duties v william francis buckle  ors  stamp duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">deed of settlement establishing discretionary trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">trust property comprised land purchased with proceeds of two loans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">duty assessed on supplemental deed altering destination of corpus of trust property in default of appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">ad valorem duty payable in respect of "unencumbered value of the property ... conveyed"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">identification of property conveyed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether duty payable on unencumbered value of assets which comprised the trust fund or amount which took into account vicissitudes inherent under the deed of settlement.  trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">nature of trustee's right of exoneration and recoupment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether trustee's right constitutes beneficial interest in trust assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 4">whether trustee's right an encumbrance on the interests of beneficiaries conveyed which is to be disregarded for purposes of s 66(1) of the stamp duties act 1920 (nsw).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">contract of sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">balance of purchase price payable "upon settlement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">purported rescission by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">no settlement or conveyance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">guarantee of performance of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">whether accrued liability to make payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">performance required prior to settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 11">whether actual date of settlement or date stipulated for settlement.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 15">guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 15">breach by creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 15">circumstances in which surety discharged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 15">guarantee of hirer's obligations under hiring of machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 15">agreement by creditor to give notice of hirer's breach or of proposal by hirer to assign rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 15">failure to do so.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">frustration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract to carry out excavations for rail authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">completion required by certain date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contractor working three shifts seven days per week</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">injunction granted to third party restraining contractor from working at certain times</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether implied term of contract that authority would grant reasonable extension of time and indemnify contractor against additional costs occasioned by grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether injunction frustrated contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">extrinsic evidence of intention.  arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">jurisdiction to entertain claim that contract frustrated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">power to award interest on award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">compound interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 94(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">construction contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">default by contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">works proprietor entitled to take possession of plant owned by contractor and use to complete works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">plant held under hire-purchase and leasing agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">contractor not entitled to compensation for use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 3">whether penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 27">real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 27">strata titles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 27">recovery by owners corporation of contributions and expenses under s 80 of the strata scheme management act 1996</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 27">whether expenses include legal costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 27">if so, what legal costs may be recovered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 27">whether such costs must be claimed in the proceedings for recovery of contributions.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWCA 27" id="cs0">65 Similar issues can arise in respect of the recovery of costs under mortgages and other finance transactions. In such cases, the amount recoverable will turn upon the proper construction of the contractual provision: see, eg, Ringrow Pty Ltd v BP Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1446 (Rares J). With respect to a mortgagee, the entitlement to recover all costs reasonably and properly incurred in protecting or enforcing a security has long been a principle of general law, not dependent upon the existence of an express contractual term: see In re Shanahan (1941) 58 WN (NSW) 132 at 134 (Street J). The principle applied in Shanahan was not novel: it is commonly sourced to Detillin v Gale [1802] EngR 330 ; (1802) 7 Ves Jun 583 ; 32 ER 234 (Lord Eldon LC) and Cotterell v Stratton (1872) LR 8 Ch App 295 (Lord Selborne LC): see Tyler, Young and Croft, Fisher  Lightwood's Law of Mortgage (2nd Aust ed, 2005) at 40.1. It is usual practice nowadays for there to be a clause in a standard form mortgage entitling the mortgagee to recover all its costs; the enforcement of such terms and their interrelationship with costs rules in courts and tribunals was considered in Gomba Holdings (UK) Ltd v Minories Finance Ltd (No. 2) [1993] Ch 171 (EWCA) (Scott LJ). (The Court in Gomba (at 194) held that there was a procedure available within the Court for taxation of non-litigation costs, albeit on the contractual basis. In addition, the Court held that it had power to disallow a mortgagee's costs, as part of the power of a court of equity to fix the terms on which relief will be allowed. )</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l3">PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING FRANCHISE ACT 1980 </title>
<title id="l4">PETROLEUM RETAIL MARKETING FRANCHISE ACT 1980 No. 139, 1980 - SECT 16 Termination of franchise agreements</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l6">Legal Profession Act 1987 No 109 </title>
<title id="l7">LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1987 - SECT 208F Assessment of costs-costs ordered by court or tribunal</title>
<title id="l8">LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 1987 - SECT 208G Additional matters to be considered by costs assessors in assessing costs ordered by court or tribunal</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 493">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 493">indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 493">party and party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 493">consideration of principles applicable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1554">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1554">appeal against refusal to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1554">subsequent to instigation of appeal the appellant becomes bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1554">whether application to set aside bankruptcy notice and appeal are claims in respect of personal injury or wrong to the appellant so that the appeal may be pursued under s 60(4) bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) when trustee in bankruptcy has purported to discontinue the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1554">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1554">appeal discontinued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">estimate of costs made by registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">no notice of objection to estimate filed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">certificate of taxation issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">respondent claimed certificate not received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">respondent seeks to set aside order of registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">email service originally relied on for order but no email consent given under form 12</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">subsequent reliance on postage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">deeming provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">serious consequences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1449">degree of certainty of evidence as to actual postage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 697">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 697">whether costs of notice of motion should be taxed and payable forthwith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 697">question of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 697">history of proceedings relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 697">interests of justice require departure from rule that costs be payable only when proceedings concluded</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1404" id="cs0">It is clear that Australian Medic-Care may only apply for the order it seeks if it had not received the notice of the estimate (O 62 r 46(3)(cb) and see Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 518). It is also clear that it carries the onus of establishing that the notice was not received. There is no evidence that the notice of estimate was not received at Australian Medic-Care's address for service. In fact the probability is that it was. Service has been effected in accordance with the Federal Court Rules (see Order 7) and Australian Medic-Care has failed to establish that it did not receive the notice of estimate. Under the relevant rule I do not have a discretion to make the order which Australian Medic-Care seeks. In those circumstances, the notice of motion must be dismissed. I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Besanko. Associate:

Dated: 15 December 2010

 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2010/1404.html

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1554" id="cs1">1 This appeal is from a decision of a Federal Magistrate dismissing the appellant's application to set aside a bankruptcy notice: Rana v Chief of Army [2008] FCA 518. For present purposes, the appeal presently raises the short point whether, under s 60(4) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act), the appellant can maintain the appeal. It arises because, after the appeal was instituted, the appellant became bankrupt on 13 August 2008.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1449" id="cs2">14 In circumstances where the party who is required to pay has not received the estimate, the paying party may apply to the Court for an order to set aside the certificate of taxation: O 62 r 46(3)(cb) FCR. However, where costs remain unpaid for a period of 14 days after service of a certificate of taxation, the registrar shall at the request of the party in whose favour the costs are awarded, draw up, sign and seal an order in favour of that party for the sum shown in the certificate of taxation and enter the same: O 62 r 45(3) FCR. That award carries interest from the date of the certificate: O 62 r 45(6) and (7) FCR. From these provisions it can be seen that in circumstances where a litigant receives a copy of the estimate it is not open under O 62 r 46(3)(cb) FCR to set aside the certificate of taxation or any order which is based upon it: Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 518 at [12] . There is, however, procedural fairness provided at the earlier stage, in the sense that there is a right to object on receipt of the estimate within a period of 21 days after the estimate pursuant to O 62 r 46(3)(c) FCR and failing receipt of notification of the estimate there is a right to apply to set aside the certificate of taxation under O 62 r 46(3)(cb) FCR. The purpose of the service of the certificate of taxation is to allow the paying party 14 days within which to pay the costs as assessed. An order under O 62 r 45(3) FCR for payment of the costs as certified involves no exercise of discretion. It is a mandatory procedure. The receiving party is entitled as of right to the order once the costs remained unpaid for 14 days after service of the certificate.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 697" id="cs3">1 On 22 April 2008 I delivered judgment in Cytel Pty Ltd v Peoplebank Recruitment Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 518 , pursuant to a notice of motion filed by Cytel ('the notice of motion'). Cytel sought orders, inter alia, that a costs order against it be set aside and that it be granted time to file a notice of objection to a bill of costs issued against it. The notice of motion was dismissed and Cytel was ordered to pay Peoplebank's costs on an indemnity basis. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">income tax and related legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">trust income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">whether beneficiary presently entitled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">where immediate beneficiary is the trustee of another trust estate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">self-executing provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">contrast with provisions which are not self-executing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">relevance of rule in saunders v vautier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">where additional tax imposed on ultimate beneficiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 111">remission thereof.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">supreme court order refusing to set aside default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">whether order interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 35</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">high court rules, o. 70, r. 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">supreme court rules (n.s.w.) pt 40, r. 9(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 574">gst</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 574">whether applicant liable for gst as trustee of a trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 574">whether penalties correctly   imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 574">decisions under review affirmed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 574" id="cs0">The statements were clearly false; they were contrary to fact and wrong. In this context the word "false" means "wrong": Pearson v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 558 at [23] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l2">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l3">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZ Person may seek review of, or appeal against, Commissioner's decision</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">related companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">debt restructuring</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">resolutions that debt owed to company a by company b be replaced by debt owed by company c</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">journal entries later made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">whether transaction in breach of directors' statutory and fiduciary duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">whether an uncommercial transaction within s 588fb of corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">whether company a became insolvent because of the transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">whether transaction given effect by making the journal entries and company a insolvent at that time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">consideration of whether voluntary assistance from related companies material to insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 243">and of scheme for avoidance of insolvent transactions within s 588fc of the law. d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">application to wind up company under s459p of the corporations act following statutory demand where no application to set aside on basis of genuine dispute as to claimed debt or offsetting claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">resultant presumption of insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">rebuttal to presumption of insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">borrowing capacity to meet current liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">bank loans as non-current or current liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">verification of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">independent accountants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">sufficiency of accounting records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 163">appointment of an administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">just and equitable ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">asic investigation ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">sham transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">round robin shift of funds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">funding of taxation deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">fraud on investors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2001] VSC 383">fraud on australian taxation office.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">corporate finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">whether investment clubs run by respondents were managed investment schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">whether schemes should be wound up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] WASC 27">whether companies participating in the operation of the schemes should be wound up on the just and equitable ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">winding-up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">just and equitable ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">australian securities commission as applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">petition based on public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust and management companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">maintaining appropriate standards of conduct in the superannuation industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">investor protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">persistent breaches of trust, of fiduciary duty and of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">companies not insolvent.   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">receivers and managers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">corporations law s1323</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">asc investigation completed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">no necessity for fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">serious and persistent breaches of trust, of fiduciary duty and of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">investor protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">undertakings by respondent companies in lieu of an order inappropriate.   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">director's duty of care in such companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">effect on of trustee's duty of caution.   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">corporations law s60</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">deemed director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">person according to whose direction or instruction the directors are accustomed to act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.25">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">directions or instructions need not be formal or all-encompassing.   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.26">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.27">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">whether directors owe a duty of care to trust beneficiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.28">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">whether directors as such are in a fiduciary relationship with trust beneficiaries.   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.29">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.30">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">duty to keep both minutes of board meetings and correct accounting records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.31">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">corporations law ss258 and 289</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.32">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.33">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">significant trust decisions and investments not recorded.   trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.34">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">powers, duties, rights and liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.35">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">duty of care and caution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.36">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">prudent business person test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.37">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.38">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">higher standard for professional, corporate trustee.   trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.39">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">powers, duties, rights and liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.40">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">related trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.41">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">duty to consider the separate interests of each trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.42">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">inter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.43">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust dealings.   trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.44">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">powers, duties, rights and liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.45">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust funds of separate trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.46">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">duty to bank separately</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.47">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">common bank account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.48">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">use of trust funds for non-trust purposes.   trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.49">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">superannuation trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.50">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">investments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.51">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">negative gearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.52">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">non-performing loans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.53">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">loans without any or adequate or timely security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.54">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">borrowing at up to twice reserve bank lending rates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.55">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">imprudent investments.   trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.56">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.57">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">partial decision making</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.58">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">acting in interests of a third party.   trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.59">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">trust company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.60">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">keeping of records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.61">cited from="[1995] FCA 1663">no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">avoidance of preferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">"unable to pay his debts as they become due from his own money"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">what constitutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 28">bankruptcy act 1924-1960 (cth), s. 95.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">winding up on application by asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">just and equitable grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">s 461(1)(k) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">sole director ill</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">company no longer carrying on any business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">claims by investors made to company ignored</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">no effective management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 2084">other failures by company to comply with statutory requirements</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 498" id="cs0">It is now well established that in determining whether to make an order for the winding up of a company on the just and equitable ground, the Court must itself evaluate the factual matrix in order to form a view as to whether a sufficient reason for making the order is demonstrated: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Green Pacific Energy Ltd [2006] FCA 1254 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 142 at 181 [139] .  In the past, orders under s 461(1)(k) of the Act have included cases: where, on application by a public authority, it is in the public interest that a company be wound up because there is a 'justifiable lack of confidence in the conduct and management of the affairs of the company': Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Green Pacific Energy Ltd [2006] FCA 1254 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 142 at 181 [137] to [139]; where the winding up will serve to protect investors: see Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Pegasus [2002] NSWSC 310 ; (2002) 41 ACSR 561 at 579 [96] to [98]; and the affairs of the company have been conducted in a way which demonstrates a lack of probity productive of a justifiable lack of confidence in the administration of the company, or where there has been misconduct or illegality in the conduct of the affairs such as it is in the public interest in the protection of investors that the company be wound up: Loch v John Blackwood Ltd [1924] AC 283 at 788; Australian Securities Commission v AS Nominees Pty Ltd (1995) 62 FCR 503 at 530-533; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v ABC Fund Managers Ltd [2001] VSC 383 ; (2001) 39 ACSR 443 at [116] --- [129]; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Casualife Furniture International Pty Ltd [2004] VSC 157 ; (2004) 9 VR 549 at [449] --- [464]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v International Unity Insurance Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 1059 at [135] --- [139]; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v West (2008) 66 ACSR 143 at [140] --- [160]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 2084" id="cs1">7 ASIC should identify the public interest on which it bases its application to wind up for just and equitable reasons: Australian Securities Commission v AS Nominees Ltd [1995] FCA 1663 ; (1995) 133 ALR 1 and more recently in Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Green Pacific Energy Ltd [2006] FCA 1254 ; (2006) 59 ACSR 142 per Greenwood J at [138]-[144]. The plaintiff points to the continued breaches of the Act as the public interest affected by the operations of the defendant through its management. The plaintiff also submits that the public interests requires that corporations have effective management so that creditors of the corporation are dealt with in accordance with the statutory duties of both the corporation and its directors. Winding up is the appropriate remedy to end a period of managerial limbo: Clarke v Bridges [2004] FCA 394 per Finkelstein J at [7] to [13].
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 461 General grounds on which company may be wound up by Court</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l5">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 460">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 460">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 460">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 460">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 460">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 460">applicant is a citizen of pakistan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 460">credibility.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">appeal from federal magistrates court order dismissing application for constitutional writs to quash decision of refuge review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether inquisitorial function of tribunal duly performed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether "jurisdictional error" in tribunal's decision.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>