Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 826">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 826">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 826">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 826">whether tribunal failed to comply with s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 826">whether tribunal acted unreasonably in failing to make inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">where appellant denied protection visa by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">where appellant appeared at two hearings before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">where appellant made claims at second tribunal hearing not made at first tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">where tribunal affirmed minister's refusal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">whether difference between claims made at first hearing and second hearing was information which was the reason or part of the reason for affirming the minister's decision within the meaning of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">whether tribunal obliged to notify appellant of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">effect of s 424a(3)(b).  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">if difference in claims made at first hearing and second hearing was 'information' in the relevant sense, it was information provided by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">any such information fell within the exception in s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">tribunal not obliged to notify appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 319">appeal dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of provision of information to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal asked wrong question or applied wrong test in considering claim of fear of persecution on religious grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness having regard to the manner of examination of independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">lapse of time between entry into australia and bringing of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">consideration of s 91r(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">where appellant converted to christianity while in australia practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">leave to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether respondents prejudiced by granting of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether exceptional circumstances required to be shown by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether allowance to be granted by the court to permit recently published judgments to be understood and applied by legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">grounds not raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 174">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 174">operation of articles 1a(2) or 1c(5) of the convention relating to the status of refugees 1951</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 174">s 424a of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 174">information that should have been subject of the provision of particulars.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1598">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1598">appeal from federal magistrate's review of a decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1598">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1598">whether principles of procedural fairness require tribunal to put its views to the appellant on the appellant's document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1598">rejection of documents not based on credibility of appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">information provided by the appellant in his application for a protection visa was a part of the refugee review tribunal's reasons for affirming the minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">appellant requested in his application to the tribunal that it refer to that information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">information fell within s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1140">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1140">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1140">whether tribunal complied with s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1140">whether tribunal relied on positive statements or mere omissions in information given by appellant in original application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1140">whether appellant republished information given in original application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1140">appeal dismissed with costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">rejection of application for review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">indian christian evangelist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">claim for refugee status based on fear of lack of effective protection against hindu extremists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">argued before fmc (i) no evidence to support finding of fact as to action by indian police in response to attacks against members of religious minorities (ii) tribunal did not ask "what if i am wrong?"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">leave sought to raise further arguments (iii) failure to comply with s 424a migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of information concerning appellant's failings to return to site of home allegedly burned down by extremists and (iv) failure to deal with essential integers of appellant's claim held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 451">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 451">well-founded fear of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 451">application of s 424a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where applicant made references in application for review by refugee review tribunal to material provided to department in visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">meaning of 'information' under s 424a(1) and s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">incorporation by reference in application for review and whether considered 'information' applicant gave for purposes of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">held objective test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where tribunal made positive finding of elaboration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">treatment of omissions in evidence by review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">whether considered information relevant to s 424a(1)(b) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">whether provisions of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) were observed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">whether wrongly finding that appellant had not made in original claim was mere error of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">where factual error demonstrates jurisdictional error on part of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">treatment of omissions in evidence of applicant by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">whether jurisdictional error on part of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 431">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">no error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">saap v mimia [2005] hca 24 ; (2005) 215 alr 162 ; mima v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 24 ; s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1200">circumstances in which prior statement may be information that is the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1256">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1256">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1256">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1256">non-appearance of appellant before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1256">tribunal dismissed application for review stating, among other things, that it would have asked appellant about certain matters, including that his initial visa application stated the only reason he did not want to return to india was that he wanted to continue his studies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1256">whether lack of information is "information" for purposes of s 424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1256">possibility of relocation in india a separate ground for refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">refugee review tribunal ("the rrt") failed to give appellant particulars in writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether information provided by applicant on protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether converted to information given by applicant for purpose of application for review by rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether exception in s424a(3)(b) of migration act 1958 (cth) enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether breach of s424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates decision of rrt practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">joinder of rrt migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">s424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">tribunal relied on documents attached to earlier student visa application and on information attached to protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">in written submission to tribunal, applicant's counsel stated that details of claim contained in protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether information given to tribunal for the purpose of the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">tribunal drew to applicant's attention each of documents attached to student visa application, in course of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether tribunal gave particulars of information, explained its relevance, and invited comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether failure to do these things jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether discretion should be exercised to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">allegations of domestic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">where tribunal found persecution was not for a convention reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">whether applicant a member of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">whether information relied on by tribunal fell within s.424a(3)(b) migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">whether information was "given" to tribunal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1787" id="cs0">What constitutes the "giving" of information for the purposes of s.424A(3)(b) has been discussed in several cases, including SZEEU v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 2 ; VWBF v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 851 ; MZXBM v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1031 and NBKT v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 195.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">contravention of s 10 of the petroleum retail marketing sites act 1980 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">parties present joint submissions on the appropriate pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">direction under federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) asking whether the court must consider whether the proposed amount is within the permissible range and, if so, impose the "agreed" penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">powers and responsibilities of court faced with joint submission on penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] n w frozen foods proprietary ltd v australian competition  consumer commission [1996] fca 1134 (20 december 1996)    trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalties under s.76 for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of agreement between a.c.c.c. and corporation on joint submissions proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">desirability of settlement of such cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalty cases not criminal prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of undertaking by corporation of a compliance programme agreed with the commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">difficulties in comparing penalties in other cases with that proposed for the instant case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">importance of the particular market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of identity of corporation to be penalised where it was a member of a group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of whether a corporation has previously contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">inappropriateness of diminishing the credit to be given a corporation for co-operation and admission of liability by reference to any costs saving it may achieve thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">reference to u.s. law conceding the u.s. federal trade commission "a special competence in formulating remedies"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">discussion of the question for the court where penalty is the subject of an agreed joint submission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 58">environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 58">pecuniary civil penalty sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 58">declaration of contravention sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 58">statement of agreed facts provided by parties  declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 58">statement of agreed facts adduced as evidence under s 191 evidence act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 58">whether agreed facts are evidence sufficient to support declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">civil penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">contravention of s 18(3) of the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth) by taking an action that had a significant impact on an endangered species</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">proposed penalties agreed between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">criteria to be taken into account when determining penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">determination that agreed pecuniary penalty not within range of appropriate penalty   held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">penalty proposed by the parties not within the permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 753">higher pecuniary penalty imposed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 58" id="cs0">In addition to the matters specified in subs (a)-(d) of s 481(3), matters relevant to determining the pecuniary penalty include: the need to deter contravention of the EPBC Act by the party concerned and by the public in general: Trade Practices Commission v CSR Ltd [1991] ATPR 41-076 at 52,152 and Minister for Environment Heritage and the Arts v Lamattina [2009] FCA 753 at [47] ; the extent to which the contravener has co-operated during investigations and subsequent proceedings; Minister for Environment and Heritage v Warne [2007] FCA 599: see however Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Greentree (No 3) [2004] FCA 1317 at [73] where Sackville J expressed reservation on this point; whether the contravener has taken remedial action to minimise environmental damage: Minister for the Environment and Heritage v Greentree (No 3) [2004] FCA 1317 at [58] ; whether the contravener has any history of other contravening behaviour; Minister for Environment and Heritage v Warne [2007] FCA 599 at [15]- [16]; Minister for Environment Heritage and the Arts v Lamattina [2009] FCA 753 at [27] - [29] and [74]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 753" id="cs1">On the facts put by the respondent and not disputed by the applicant, the respondent knew that he was close to the border of the Park and knew there was a risk that his vessel might drift into the Park, but did not know that in fact his vessel had done so. Further, it was a first offence, was not deliberate and was the result of negligence, bordering on recklessness. In Minister for Environment and Heritage v Warne [2007] FCA 599 ( Warne ), the respondent was the skipper of a vessel which carried out commercial fishing within the boundaries of a reserve contrary to s 354(1)(a) and (f) of the EPBC Act. Whilst inside the boundaries, the vessel took a species of fish classified as a native species under the EPBC Act. The parties filed an agreed statement of facts and made joint submissions in support of a pecuniary penalty of $25,000 (the maximum civil penalty for an individual was $55,000).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l1">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 4AA Penalty units</title>
<title id="l2">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">application to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">motion seeking trial with jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">no entitlement to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">normal mode of trial without jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1403">no substantial reason to depart from normal mode of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1329">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1329">whether application for leave to appeal from interlocutory judgment should be heard by single judge or full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 395">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 395">applications for leave to appeal an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 395">onus in proceedings borne by applicant for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 395">tests for the grant of leave not made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 395">purported election to have applications dealt by the full court of the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 395">no right of election exists under the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 395">applications dismissed with costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">whether the grant or refusal of leave to appeal is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">order 52 rule 2aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">distinction between a clear-cut case for the grant or refusal of leave and an evenly balanced case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">significance of no right of appeal from grant or refusal of leave or confusion about whether such a right exists. preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">refusal to grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">whether a matter of practice or procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 47">whether effectively final in nature.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">interlocutory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">exercisable by single judge or full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">no right to require hearing by full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">motion listed before single judge  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">interlocutory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 227">no right to require full court hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1166">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1166">application for costs normally to be made or reserved at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1166">application for indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1166">rolled up offer not distinguishing between individual liability of unsuccessful parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1166">offer open only for a short time and expired before scheduled mediation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 592">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 592">appeal from interlocutory decision of single judge sitting in the appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 592">whether the grant or refusal of extension of time is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">decision of administrative appeals tribunal to refuse to issue summonses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">whether appellable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">availability of judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">" decision "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">incompetence of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 241">refusal of interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">application for order that leave to appeal application be heard by full court pursuant to o 52 r 2aa(a) federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">s 25(2) federal court act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">consideration of principles relating to referral of leave to appeal application to full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">factors relevant to exercise of court's discretion which justify departure from prima facie position that application for leave to appeal be heard by single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">whether the judgment relates to "minor interlocutory squabble"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">whether prima facie hopeless case inappropriate for referral to full court to hear leave application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 34">whether factors including cost, efficiency and public importance warrant referral of leave to appeal application to full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">voluntary statement of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">filed "to assist the parties"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">filing constitutes no joinder of issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">legal advice in minute making recommendations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">no waiver of privilege practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">statement of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">statement as to effect of legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 105">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">lack of satisfaction as to counter-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">misrepresentation by third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">counter-claim, set-off or cross demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">need for an action sounding in money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">conclusiveness of assessments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1985">bankruptcy notice not set aside</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1166" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 592" id="cs1">In Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1516 , Moore J held:

 ... [A]ll s 25(2) does is confer appellate jurisdiction on single judges and Full Courts to deal with applications for leave to appeal. Order 52, r 2AA prescribes, in my opinion unexceptionably, the mechanism that determines whether this jurisdiction will be exercised by a single judge, on the one hand, or a Full Court, on the other. As Buchanan J correctly observed in McDonald's Australia Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) [2008] FCA 395 ; (2008 69 ATR 898 , referring to his Honour's earlier judgment in Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 47 , the provisions of O 52, r 2AA admit no debate about the existence of any such right of election. There is none.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 241" id="cs2">An application for leave to appeal may be heard either by a single judge or by the Full Court: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 25(2)(a). Order 52 r 2AA further provides as follows:

 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction
 An application mentioned in subsection 25 (2) of the Act must be heard and determined by a single Judge unless:
 (a) a Judge directs that the application be heard and determined by a Full Court; or
 (b) the application is made in a proceeding that has already been assigned to a Full Court, and the Full Court considers it is appropriate for it to hear and determine the application.

Accordingly, a party has no " right to an election " as to whether any application for leave should be heard by a single Judge as opposed to a Full Court. As to any such asserted right, " there is none ": Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1516 at [4] , [2008] FCA 1516 ; 172 FCR 469 at 471. The present proceeding has not as yet been assigned to a Full Court. And, notwithstanding some reservation, it is considered that the present application should not be referred to a Full Court. But for:
 the primary Judge's further observations extending beyond his conclusion as to the competency of the appeal pursuant to s 44 of the 1975 Act; and the Respondent's acceptance of the ability of the Applicant to make any such further application as he sees fit for a further summons different in terms to those that have already been rejected,
 a different conclusion may have been reached as to whether the present application should be resolved by a Full Court. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 34" id="cs3">A number of these factors emerge from cases including Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 47 , TS Production LLC [2008] FCA 1329 , Zegarac v Pitcher Partners [2009] FCA 1061 , Allphones Retail Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 849 and Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1516 ; (2008) 172 FCR 469. Consideration
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1034" id="cs4"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 105" id="cs5">Pursuant to O 52 r 2AA(a) of the Federal Court Rules , Middleton J on 2 April 2009 made an order that the application for leave was to be heard by a Full Court. Whatever prior " uncertainty " there may have been as to a right to elect to make an application for leave to either a single judge or the Full Court, that " uncertainty " has now been resolved by O 52 r 2AA. " There is none ": Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1516 at [4] [2008] FCA 1516 ; , 172 FCR 469 at 471 per Moore J. On 7 April 2009 His Honour further ordered that the " application for leave to appeal and any appeal be heard instanter ". Those are the matters now before this Court.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1985" id="cs6">A prior Notice of Motion seeking to have the present proceeding heard in this Court with a jury was dismissed: Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1403. An application for leave to appeal that decision has also been dismissed: Harding v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 1516. The present Application is thus to be heard by a Judge of this Court, sitting alone. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 30 General powers of Courts in bankruptcy</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 31 Exercise of jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 39 Civil trials to be without jury</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 40 Power of Court in civil proceedings to direct trial of issues with a jury</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">whether failure to comply with section 424 gives rise to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">the obligation to give a written invitation to a person to provide additional information is mandatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">whether failure to provide 'information' involved a breach of section 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">'information' relevant to the review by the rrt which might be used to decide matters adversely to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">breach of section 424a(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">appeal upheld. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">judicial comity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">an earlier decision of the full court on similar issues should be followed unless 'plainly wrong'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">decision in szkti v minister for immigration and citizenship not 'plainly wrong' but correct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 119">decision followed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 83">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 83">refugee review tribunal telephoned a person to obtain information about appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 83">procedures for obtaining such information in ss 424(2) , (3) and 424b of the migration act 1958 (cth) not followed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 83">whether jurisdictional error. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 83">refugee review tribunal telephoned a person to obtain information about appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 83">whether telephone call raised new "issues arising in relation to the decision under review" under s 425(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 83">whether tribunal therefore required to invite appellant to a new hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) required the tribunal to refer to evidence contrary to its findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether a breach of s 430(1) amounts to a jurisdictional error grounding prerogative relief.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424B Requirements for written invitation etc.</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 428 Tribunal member may authorise another person to take evidence</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 257">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 257">allegation of misleading or deceptive conduct, unconscionable conduct, breach of contract and cross-claim of breach of contract.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 257">venue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 257">application to have the proceeding heard in another registry of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 257">matters for consideration.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 257" id="cs0">However, as indicated, it may be that once further pre-trial procedures and preparation for the trial have taken place the position may change. Dollar Sweets may wish to re-agitate the issue of change of place of proceeding in relation to the place of hearing (see Omiros per Gray J, Tidswell Financial Services Limited (ACN 010 810 607) v Sovereign Capital Limited (ACN 085 821 218) [2008] FCA 586 and cf the approach taken by the Federal Court in WG and B Manufacturing v Telsa Farad Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 859). It is normally desirable for the one judicial officer to take charge of a case from its inception, deal with all interlocutory applications and, where possible, hear the trial. However, in the particular circumstances of this case, while taking that factor into account, given that I accept that it is not possible to make a properly informed decision on all matters relevant to the question of venue for the hearing at this stage of the proceedings, this factor should not be such as to mean that there could not be a change of venue for the trial if it emerges that that is the most appropriate course to adopt. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 48 Change of venue</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">approval of scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">intervener</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">supreme court writ of summons with endorsement alleging breach of obligations relating to a confidentiality and non</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">circumvention agreement served by intervener on plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">writ served two working days before meeting of plaintiff's shareholders to approve the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">members who attended meeting informed of writ</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">proxy voters not so informed directly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">asx informed of writ before meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">allegations in writ denied by plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">scheme approved by overwhelming majority of members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">whether notice of writ to proxy voters may have altered their decision whether to vote in favour of the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">appropriate that matter of writ was brought to the attention of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">writ did disclose triable issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">plaintiff willing to consent to orders to preserve intervener's legitimate interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">intervener pressed for adjournment and for orders that a further meeting of members be convened to enable proxy voters to consider terms of writ</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">no explanation as to why adjournment being sought when intervener had no obvious interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 1396">ulterior purpose inferred.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">action summarily dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">unreasonable to have subjected the respondents to the expenditure of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1999] VSC 231">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1999] VSC 231">reduction of capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1999] VSC 231">preference shares cancelled for consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1999] VSC 231">objections</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1999] VSC 231">confirmed by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1999] VSC 231">costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates' courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">discretion to award costs to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates (summary proceedings) act 1975 (vict.), s.97(b).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 413 Provisions for facilitating reconstruction and amalgamation of Part 5.1 bodies</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 414 Acquisition of shares of shareholders dissenting from scheme or contract approved by majority</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1335 Costs</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 - REG 2.13 Leave to creditor, contributory or officer to be heard</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 252">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 252">employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 252">claim of harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 252">application for prerogative relief in relation to decisions of australian industrial relations commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 252">issue about applicant's medical fitness for work as a 'seafarer'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 252">whether a certificate of medical fitness issued pursuant to part 9 of marine orders under navigation act should have been regarded as conclusive of this question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 252">whether there was jurisdictional error in respect of rejection of evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 45">kennedy cleaning services pty limited v petkoska  workers' compensation (act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 45">injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 45">personal injury arising in the course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 45">employee had diseased heart valve and suffered a lesion caused by a blood clot which resulted in a stroke</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 45">whether mutually exclusive statutory regimes for "injury" and "disease".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1995] AATA 42">workers compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1995] AATA 42">ineligible for payments of compensation as a result of false representations as to a disease. failure to disclose symptoms is a false representation and sufficient to invoke prohibition. wilful means intentionally and knowingly.   safety rehabilitation and safety act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1995] AATA 42">ss.7(7)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">ground of appeal added by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">allegation of technical invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">effect of seeking new trial on different issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">limited public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.),s. 75a(6).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">tribunal established under s.64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">appeal from tribunal to federal court of australia on question of law only (s.95(1))</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">federal court of australia act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">court on such an appeal exercising original jurisdiction through single judge (ss.19  20 )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">reference by judge at first instance to full court (s.25(6))</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">pre-existing injury (non-compensable)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">incapacitating pain arising therefrom and caused by conditions of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">whether injury within meaning of compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (s.5)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">aggravation of pre-existing injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">meaning of.  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">commonwealth government employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">pre-existing non-compensable injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">incapacitating pain but no pathological change caused by conditions of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">whether compensable injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">"aggravation of . . . injury"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth), s. 5.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">"aggravation of . . . injury"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.21">cited from="[1981] FCA 88">compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth), s. 5. the notice of appeal against a decision of the commonwealth employees' compensation tribunal raised, inter alia, the following question of law: "does pain doing no pathological harm constitute an aggravation of a pre-existing injury caused in non-compensable circumstances within the meaning of the act (compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971)?" that question was reserved for decision of a full court of the federal court of australia.  held, per curiam, that pain brought on by work activity may constitute an aggravation of a pre-existing non-compensable injury within the meaning of the compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 even though no pathological change takes place. whether it does or does not is a question of fact.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 42">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 42">statutory illegality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 42">mortgage and guarantees given to person carrying on unauthorized banking business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 42">banking act 1959 (cth), s. 8.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">workers' compensation (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">"aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of any disease"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">functional mental illness a disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">physical injury to worker suffering from pre-existing mental disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">new delusion of incapacity to work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">employment a contributing factor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 34">workers' compensation act, 1926-1960 (n.s.w.), s 6 (1) "injury"*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">claim for l3/4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">l4/5 disc protrusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">injury under s 5a(1) of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">diagnosis of back strain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">applicant submitted voluntarily and unreasonably to abnormal risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">condition not treated as having arisen out of, or in the course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">alternatively, applicant's serious and wilful misconduct prevents liability to pay compensation to the applicant for incapacity or impairment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2011] AATA 312">decision under review affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">reasons of tribunal to be adequately explained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">reasons of the tribunal to be read in a balanced and fair manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">findings of fact  veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">reasonable hypothesis incapacity is war-caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">need for satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that hypothesis is to be rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">entitlement to special rate of pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">substantial cause of incapacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether 'disease' contributed to in a 'material degree' by employment by employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether disease a result of 'reasonable disciplinary action'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether disease a result of 'failure to obtain a benefit'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">whether injury caused by 'serious and wilful misconduct'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">injury contributed to in a material degree by employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 450">decision set aside and substituted.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 312" id="cs0">I am satisfied that, in the particular circumstance of his case [19] , Mr Kemp's deliberate decision not to wear a seat belt was conduct which was attended by the risk of non-trivial injury and which significantly increased the likelihood of such injury. Accordingly, I am satisfied that, in accordance with s 14(3) of the Act, compensation is not payable to Mr Kemp in relation to the back strain he sustained on 20 May 2008.
  Also, in Inco Ships Pty Ltd v Hardman the Federal Court stated that misconduct "is serious if it significantly increases the likelihood of serious injury". [18]  The evidence of Mr Skelding was that there was a real risk of a vehicle roll-over while negotiating the left turn on the haul road because of its acute angle. On that evidence, the risk of a roll-over was higher than would be the case of a properly designed and constructed corner and, in that sense, I am satisfied that it was an abnormal risk. I am also satisfied that the risk of injury by an occupant of a vehicle is increased where the occupant is not restrained in the vehicle by a seat belt. Mr Kemp dismissed as 'ludicrous' the suggestion that he knew there was risk of injury from driving his truck into the corner at excessive speed and without wearing a seat belt. I do not accept his evidence in that regard. In his statement at KG1, Mr Kemp described himself as having been "thrown about the cab" and forwards into the windscreen, an unsurprising consequence of the absence of a seat belt and one which was causally associated [11] with his back injury. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1044" id="cs1">It is s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which entrusts to the Tribunal --- and not this Court --- the task of providing in writing a statement of reasons that " include its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based ". Subject to s 44(7) of the same Act, it is not the task of this Court, on appeal, to itself make findings of fact which may support an alternative basis upon which the Tribunal may have reached the same conclusion. Where a factual issue has not been fully explored before the Tribunal, care must be exercised before this Court invokes the power conferred by s 44(7) to make additional findings of fact: See Inco Ships Pty Ltd v Finlay Murdoch Hardman [2007] FCA 1138 , 167 FCR 294. Mansfield J there observed:

 [71] ... As its contentions indicate, there was some medical evidence considering the relationship between the degenerative conditions of the respondent's right knee and his left knee. The issue was not fully explored because, in the particular circumstances, it was not a matter upon which the Tribunal was required to make, or made, a finding favourable to the contention of the applicant.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 450" id="cs2">In relation to the second principle set out in the preceding paragraph, Counsel for Mr Caldwell referred us to the Federal Court decision of Inco Ships Pty Ltd v Hardman [2007] FCA 1138 in which Madgwick J stated that misconduct is serious "if it significantly increases the likelihood of serious injury. " [33] For reasons to which we shall refer later, the difference in these two approaches is immaterial in the case before us.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AIRC 422" id="cs3"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 10 Acting appointments</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 63 Contempt of Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 235 Offences in relation to work</title>
<title id="l6">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 </title>
<title id="l7">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 124 Medical examination of masters and seamen</title>
<title id="l8">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 389 False declarations etc.</title>
<title id="l9">NAVIGATION ACT 1912 - SECT 425 Regulations</title>
<title id="l10">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l11">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 24 Compensation for injuries resulting in permanent impairment</title>
<title id="l12">SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l13">SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1992 - SECT 3 General definitions</title>
<title id="l14">SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1992 - SECT 10 Provisions relating to diseases</title>
<title id="l15">SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1992 - SECT 26 Compensation for injuries</title>
<title id="l16">SEAFARERS REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1992 - SECT 63 Claims for compensation</title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">function of superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">definition of "dependent"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">whether limited to persons who are financially dependent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">consideration of tribunal's reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">whether tribunal satisfied s 40 of the superannuation (resolution of complaints) act 1993 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions of law invite broad enquiry as to the construction and operation of statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions seek to characterise a question of fact as a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions invite court to examine evidence and other material before the tribunal and conduct a rehearing on aspects of the controversy determined by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether convenient to make for court to make findings of fact under s 44(7).  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">meaning of 'injury' under commonwealth employees' compensation act 1930 (cth) and compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether mere experiencing of event or condition necessary for development of a disease contracted by gradual process constitutes 'injury'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">s 101(2)(a) of commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether inchoate or contingent liabilities in respect of a disease contracted by gradual process transferred to administering authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">interaction of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) and veterans' entitlements act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether compensation payable in relation to service of defence force member where provision made for the payment of pension.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">appeal from the decision of the superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">majority affirmed respondent's decision rejecting applicant's claim for a disability benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">tribunal's functions and jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">whether majority misconstrued "total and permanent disablement" and "permanent and partial disablement" under the superannuation (state public sector) deed 1990 (qld)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">whether tribunal accurately identified respondent's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">whether majority determined if respondent's decision operated fairly and reasonably on applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">failure of majority to consider applicant's eligibility for permanent disablement benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">whether majority applied wrong or irrelevant criteria in considering eligibility for total and permanent disablement benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 969">appeal allowed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 969" id="cs0">The Court's jurisdiction does not extend to a review of the Tribunal's decision on the merits, but is limited to the resolution of the controversy between the parties on questions of law: Webb v Teeling [2009] FCA 1094 at [4] ; Flexiplan Australia Ltd v Pankhurst [2001] FCA 1535 (" Flexiplan ") at [5]; TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v FCT [1988] FCA 119 ; (1988) 82 ALR 175 at 178-182. Questions of Law
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] SCTA 23" id="cs1">In a recent decision of the Federal Court in Webb v Teeling [2009] FCA 1094 (29 September 2009), there was an issue as to whether the Trustee's decision to pay part of a death benefit to the deceased member's mother, who then died before the trustee's final decision, should be set aside. It was decided both by this Tribunal and by the Federal Court, on appeal, that the mother was no longer a financial dependant at the time of the Trustee's final decision because of her earlier death. The trustee's decision was, therefore, set aside.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l2">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 14 Complaints about decisions of trustees other than decisions to admit persons to life policy funds</title>
<title id="l3">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 14A Complaints about decisions of trustees to admit persons to life policy funds</title>
<title id="l4">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 15 Who may make a complaint under section 14</title>
<title id="l5">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 19 Tribunal not to deal with complaint unless the complainant has attempted to have the matter resolved</title>
<title id="l6">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 37 Tribunal powers--complaints under section 14</title>
<title id="l7">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 46 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from determinations of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1198">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1198">whether applicant received a hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 414 Refugee Review Tribunal must review decisions</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">appeal against trustee's decision not to pay funds claimed by the applicant from the bankrupt estate being administered by the trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">trustee conceding the funds claimed were not property of the bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">applicant himself an undischarged bankrupt in new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">funds claimed by his assignee in bankruptcy in new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">applicant now claiming the funds are payable to a non party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">application dismissed.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">consolidation of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">appropriate parties to consolidated proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FMCA 739">adjournment of consolidated proceeding pending the outcome of litigation in new zealand.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 306">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 306">adjournment of proceeding pending the outcome of foreshadowed proceedings in new zealand by the official assignee of the applicant's bankrupt estate, seeking a letter of request to this court in relation to funds held by the official trustee in australia which are claimed by the applicant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">application for annulment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">appeal   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">want of prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">failure by appellant to prepare an appeal book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">an appeal in the nature of a "rehearing"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 601">further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 601" id="cs0">But the power to dismiss an appeal for want of prosecution is a power available to be exercised in an appropriate case. " [S]uccessive and cavalier omissions by the appellant " led the Full Court to dismiss an appeal in NBCI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 280. So, too, can " persistent breach of the Court's directions ": Khera v Jones [2008] FCA 548 at [16] per Buchanan J. This power can be invoked in respect to all appeals, including bankruptcy appeals: e.g. Singh v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2008] FCA 544. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 29 Courts to help each other</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 178 Appeal to Court against trustee's decision etc.</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">applicant veal of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal reviewed an unsolicited letter received by the department of immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs, which made allegations against the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal did not inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">where tribunal affirmed decision under review and said that in reaching its decision it gave no weight to the letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 72">whether procedural fairness required the tribunal to inform the appellant of the existence of the letter or its contents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">decision by reserve bank of australia to "designate" eftpos system pursuant to s 11 of the payment systems (regulation) act 1998 (cth) (" psr act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether excluding merchants as "participants" in eftpos system was an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether requisite opinions regarding efficiency and competition were formed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether irrelevant considerations were taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether failure to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether ground of wednesbury unreasonableness extends to reasoning process of decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether the decision and reasoning underlying decision were unreasonable in the wednesbury sense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether no evidence for factual findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether reserve bank of australia biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">conduct of judicial review litigation statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">construction of ss 7 , 8 and 11 of the payment systems (regulation) act 1998 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">construction of s 10b of the reserve bank act 1959 (cth) evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">expert economic evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">admissibility and use of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">meaning of "competition" and "efficiency"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">relevance to judicial review  banking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">payment systems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">eftpos system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">validity of the appointment of an administrator to an aboriginal corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">period of one day to show cause against appointment of an administrator was not a reasonable period as expressly required by the statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">consequent appointment of the administrator was invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">primary judge underestimated the difficulties faced by the corporation in responding to the notice and overestimated the urgency of the situation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">no denial of natural justice where the show cause notice was based only on the decision to cease funding to the corporation and not the causes for that decision and no opportunity given to respond to those causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">whether minister had the requisite authority to approve the appointment of the administrator where approval minuted prior to authorisation of minister in question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">whether presumptions of continuance and regularity applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 91">whether relief futile</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 91" id="cs0">1 This appeal concerns the validity of the appointment of an administrator to an Aboriginal corporation pursuant to the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act) that was upheld by the decision in Mario Guiseppe v Registrar of Aboriginal Corporations [2006] FCA 1692. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 16 Powers of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of applications for order of review</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 18C Portfolio Minister may authorise a non-portfolio Minister or a member of the Executive Council who is not a Minister to act on his or her behalf in the performance of statutory functions or the exercise of statutory powers</title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 71 Ways of giving evidence</title>
<title id="l10">HEALTH INSURANCE (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW) REGULATIONS 1999 </title>
<title id="l11">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l12">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 5 Functions and powers of Registrar.</title>
<title id="l13">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 43 Application for incorporation.</title>
<title id="l14">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 71 Application for judicial management of Aboriginal corporation.</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">non-exclusive supply agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">manufacturer using purchaser's patent rights and other information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">whether the specifications and tolerances for the product were confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">whether lost the quality of confidence because the product could be reverse engineered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">clause of agreement restraining use of confidential information by the manufacturer for five years after the termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">whether valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">another clause of the agreement by which manufacturer could not make similar product for five years after termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">whether could be read down under restraints of trade act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">whether properly read down to lesser restraint on "springboard" reasoning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">associated company of manufacturer made and supplied products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">whether by course of conduct a contract containing the same clauses restraining the associated company. d.  legislation cited:  decision:  1. appeal allowed in part. 2. set aside the declarations and orders made by bergin j to the extent of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 111">(a) deleting subparagraph (a) from each of declarations 12 and 14; (b) deleting the references to the second appellant from each of orders 18 and 19; (c) making consequential grammatical and punctuation alterations. 3. order the appellants to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. 4. liberty to apply on two days notice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">restraint of enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">restraint by agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">deed of partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">admission of partners to established business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">covenant in restraint of trade binding new partners on dissolution of partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">reasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1979] HCA 42">agreement on dissolution of partnership by which assets assigned to some former partners but goodwill reserved to all former partners.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 183 Use of information--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l2">RESTRAINTS OF TRADE ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">RESTRAINTS OF TRADE ACT 1976 - SECT 4 Extent to which restraint of trade valid</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 - SECT 21 Application and eligibility for citizenship</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT 2007 - SECT 22 General residence requirement</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 39 Discretionary transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court or the Family Court</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 45B Amount of visa application charge</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 46 Valid visa application</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 47 Consideration of valid visa application</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 8.02 Transfer to Federal Court or Family Court</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">claimed "sex worker"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">no convention nexus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">effective state protection available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">applicant did not seek international protection abroad</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">no s.424a error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">inconsistencies not part of tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">s.424a(3)(b) exception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 686">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1317">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1317">where tribunal may have made a jurisdictional error but there are independent grounds for concluding that the applicant is not entitled to a visa.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 686" id="cs0">I agree that VBAP (see also SZGXS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 398 at [10] to [11], NBAN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 57 at [63] ) provides authority to support the respondent's position.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1317" id="cs1">In these circumstances I am able to find that the jurisdictional error that the Tribunal may have fallen into is irrelevant for the purposes of this decision and that the independent findings are free of such error and the matter should not be referred; VBAP v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 965 per North J followed by Edmonds J in SZEVE v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 390 and Moore J in NBAN v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 57.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>