Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">professional services review scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">whether a medical practitioner has engaged in "inappropriate practice" in connection with the rendering or initiation of services for which medicare benefits are payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">s 92 agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">obligation on committee to provide draft report: s106kd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">procedural fairness.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">ss 5 , 6 , 11 (1)(c), 11 (3) health insurance act 1973 (cth) part vaa , ss 82 , 88 (2), 89b , 91 , 92 , 93 , 93 (1), 106kd  health insurance (professional services review) regulations 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">regs 10, 11 judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1615">s 39b(1a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 2">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 2">judicial review of a decision of the professional services review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 2">medical practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 2">whether the health insurance act 1973 (cth) requires that a final determination under s 106t of that act be made by the same person as made the draft determination provided for in s 106s of the act rather than merely by the person holding the relevant office at the relevant time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 2">whether the tribunal's report disclosed an error of law as that report was allegedly based on an unlawful sampling technique</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 2">whether the professional services review committee denied to the medical practitioner natural justice when it allegedly made adverse findings against him in its final report not foreshadowed in a draft report provided to him to comment upon, where those adverse findings were accepted by the tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte h  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">affirmation by refugee review tribunal of decision to refuse applications for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">credibility in issue before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">constant interruptions of and challenges to evidence of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">whether vigorous testing of evidence might lead a fair-minded lay person to apprehend bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">appropriate modification of test for apprehended bias when applied to administrative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 28">whether relief under s 75(v) of the constitution should be refused on discretionary grounds.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">power to suspend or revoke licence if satisfied that licensee no longer fit and proper person to hold licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">duty to provide</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">whether implied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">public service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">application for promotion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">appeal by unsuccessful applicant to public service board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">no duty to give reasons for dismissing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">relevance of statutory changes in administrative practice in other jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 7">public service act 1979 (n.s.w.), ss. 58, 65a(6), 116.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 208">health insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 208">reference to medical services committee of inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 208">whether reference authorised by health insurance act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 208">whether terms of reference cast onus of proof on practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 208">whether denial of natural justice by committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 208">whether medical services review tribunal can admit evidence not before the committee.  health insurance act 1973</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 208">ss.79 , 80 , 82 , 94 , 104 , 105 , 106 , 107, 114, 119  mcdonald v. director-general of social security (1984) 1 f.c.r.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">whether minister's failure to comply with statutory requirement of consultation with and acting on advice from third party before exercising power to appoint a person to an office renders appointment invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">ss 84(3) and 85(3) health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">statute providing that minister must consult with and be advised by australian medical association before appointing medical practitioner to be member of the professional services review panel or deputy director of professional services review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">requirement to consult under ss 84(3) and 85 (3) essential preliminaries or preconditions to the exercise of minister's power to appoint person as an officer of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">failure to comply with requirement to consult and be advised before appointing panel member or deputy director resulted in invalid constitution of committees of which they were members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">findings by invalidly constituted committees of no effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">jurisdictional error  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">de facto officers doctrine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">applicability of doctrine to acts of a person purporting to act as an officer of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">doctrine inconsistent with statutory requirements in ss 84(3) and 85 (3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 94">doctrine inapplicable in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">medical practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">professional services review scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">statutory scheme for examination of conduct to ascertain whether inappropriate practice involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">whether the director of professional services review ('the director') erred or exceeded his power by referring for review all services provided by the applicant during the review period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">whether the professional services review committee ('the committee') erred by investigating all services provided by the applicant during the review period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">whether the committee denied the applicant procedural fairness, contrary to s 106l(1b) of the health insurance act 1973 (cth), through the inclusion of further reasons in its final report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">whether the committee failed to have regard to the applicant's written submissions on its draft report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1025">whether the committee's draft and final report gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">admininstrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">failure to give effect to the representation or procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether applicant suffered practical unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether the decision maker took into account explanation given by medical practitioner for high level of servicing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether no evidence ground of review open in relation to adjudicative referral  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">judicial immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether evidence exposing the process by which the professional services review committee made its decision is admissible for the purposes of impugning the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">statutory scheme for examination of conduct of medical practitioner to ascertain whether practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">commission's decision to make investigative referral challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">director's decision to make adjudicative referral to a professional services review committee challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">final report of committee challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">sampling methodology used by committee challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">held: application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">professional services review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">statutory scheme for examination of conduct to ascertain whether inappropriate practice involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">challenge to decisions of director and committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">whether director erred in referral to committee by failing to notify applicant he had taken evidence from two medical advisors into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">whether director erred by attaching samples of medical reports to his referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">whether committee erred by taking reports into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">application of procedural fairness procedures in context of staged statutory procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">whether committee erred by adopting alternative sampling methodology in decision-making process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">whether committee should have notified the applicant that an alternative methodology had been adopted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">application of judicial immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">whether advice given by statistician as to statistical validity of methodology is part of decision-making process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">whether statistician is agent of the committee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 269">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">health insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">professional services review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">statutory scheme for examination of conduct to ascertain whether inappropriate practice involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">where committee failed to comply with sampling determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">where committee's report invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">form of orders to remit matter to new committee for determination according to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">effect of setting aside adjudicative referral</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">whether director must conduct fresh investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 453">whether director must make new adjudicative referral and report.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 94" id="cs0">The provisions of the Act dealing with the review of services provided by medical practitioners has received, perhaps not surprisingly, repeated judicial attention: e.g., Daniel v Kelly [2003] FCA 772 , 200 ALR 379 ; Kelly v Daniel [2004] FCAFC 14 , 134 FCR 64 ; Mathews v Health Insurance Commission [2006] FCA 195 , 90 ALD 49 ; Phan v Kelly [2007] FCA 269 , 158 FCR 75. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1025" id="cs1">The applicant's submissions on grounds 4 and 5 also assume --- incorrectly --- that if the Committee fails to make a change to a draft report that has been suggested to it, the Court would be entitled to infer that the Committee did not take the submissions into account, and the fair-minded lay person would be entitled to infer that the Committee closed its mind to the submissions. See Mathews v Health Insurance Commission [2006] FCA 195 ; (2006) 90 ALD 49 at [32] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 987" id="cs2">177 Further or alternatively, Dr Saint contended "as in Mathews v HIC [2006] FCA 195 ; (2006) 90 ALD 49 ( Mathews ) the selection of the first services from the preliminary sample meant that those services were not randomly chosen from that preliminary sample". It followed, said Dr Saint, that the final report was invalid.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 984" id="cs3">75 A submission to the same effect was 'rejected out of hand' by Edmonds J in Mathews v Health Insurance Commission [2006] FCA 195 ; (2006) 90 ALD 49 at [40] . It is appropriate for me to follow the approach adopted by his Honour unless I am satisfied that his Honour was in error. I am not so satisfied. Indeed, in my respectful view, his Honour was plainly correct.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 269" id="cs4">49 To support his position, Dr Phan has referred to the decision of Edmonds J in Mathews v Health Insurance Commission [2006] FCA 195 ; (2006) 90 ALD 49. In that case, his Honour decided that the Committee had erred in its sampling by failing to examine samples randomly drawn from a preliminary random sample as required by Health Insurance (Professional Services Review - Sampling Methodology) Determination 2000 (No. 1) ("the Determination"). The breach considered by his Honour was clear. The case was decided on the basis that the Committee had examined the first 30 services on lists of the first 40 services taken from lists of random samples furnished by the Commission. They were not therefore 'randomly drawn from the preliminary random sample' as required by s 8(a) of the Determination. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 453" id="cs5">I made these orders in the course of delivering judgment in this proceeding and at the time of publishing my reasons: Mathews v Health Insurance Commission [2006] FCA 195.</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">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 25D Content of statements of reasons for decisions</title>
<title id="l4">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l5">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 6 Certain persons in Australia to be treated as eligible persons etc.</title>
<title id="l6">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 8 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l7">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 10 Entitlement to Medicare benefit</title>
<title id="l8">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 82 Definitions of inappropriate practice</title>
<title id="l9">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106K Committee may have regard to samples of services</title>
<title id="l10">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106KD Preparation of draft report</title>
<title id="l11">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106L Final report of Committee</title>
<title id="l12">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106Q The Determining Authority</title>
<title id="l13">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l14">HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW) ACT 1999 - SECT 2 Commencement</title>
<title id="l15">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l16">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l17">HEALTH INSURANCE (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW) REGULATIONS 1999 </title>
<title id="l18">HEALTH INSURANCE (PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REVIEW) REGULATIONS 1999 - REG 5 An adequate record</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">copyright infringement in gaming machines parts and components</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">infringement inferred from circumstantial evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">authorisation of copyright infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">joint liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">claim in conversion for resale of components acquired from scrap dealer fails</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">scrap dealer not a bailee of the goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">infringement of copyright established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1495">damages and additional damages ordered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">election for compensatory damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">assessment of damages on the basis of a royalty inappropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">whether loss of sales by the copyright owner could be inferred merely from the fact of sales of infringing product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">requirement for evidence of lost sales and value of such sales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">purpose of awarding additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2007] FCAFC 40">assessment of additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 487">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 487">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 487">whether partial costs order should be made in a case where the award of damages was well short of the amount claimed by the applicants but exceeded an offer made by the respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 487">whether the costs associated with the evidence of an expert should be excluded in a case where the experts' opinions were unsupported by any evidence.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1495" id="cs0">Although there are other innocent explanations which could have been given for the adoption of this course, Mr Andrews' email of 10 April 2005 was written shortly after an Anton Piller raid on a business associate of his, Mr David Parry: see Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 275 ; (2006) 68 IPR 229. I cannot accept that it was mere coincidence that the adoption of the Yahoo email address and the sending of the email set out in [314] by Mr Andrews corresponded with the raids on Mr Parry's premises. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1139" id="cs1">• The undertakings, which are in place and have been since April 2007, are offered on a permanent basis. They are no longer made without admissions. They cover the same ground as the proposed injunctions concerning the representations; a matter referred to by Wilcox J in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 275 ; (2006) 68 IPR 229 at [100] . • There is no suggestion that Servier has breached the undertakings since they were given in April 2007. • It is not for the Court to consider the potential forensic benefits to either party of making orders in the form of injunctions, rather than accepting undertakings.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCAFC 40" id="cs2">3 This appeal does not arise because of any pedantry on the part of the respondents. Rather, it arises because the primary judge found, in our view correctly, that he lacked the evidence necessary for him to calculate the value of lost sales, if any; see Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 275 ; (2006) 68 IPR 229 at [118] . His Honour then said that the "only feasible course" was to calculate damages on an accounting for profit approach. He proceeded on that basis to award $80,000 damages against Vidtech, Mr Parry and Mrs Parry and $40,000 (ie 50%) additional damages against Vidtech and Mr Parry. Both sides agree that his Honour was in error in adopting this approach because the applicants had elected to claim damages rather than an account of profits.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 487" id="cs3">1 When judgment was delivered in this matter on 22 March 2006, I reserved the matter of costs: see Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Vidtech Gaming Services Pty Limited [2006] FCA 275. I invited submissions as to the appropriate costs order.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 13 Acts comprised in copyright</title>
<title id="l2">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 14 Acts done in relation to substantial part of work or other subject-matter deemed to be done in relation to the whole</title>
<title id="l3">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 36 Infringement by doing acts comprised in the copyright</title>
<title id="l4">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 115 Actions for infringement</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l6">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">overhead costs of infringer whether deductible in determining profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">composite product wether profit on sale of whole or of part.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">distinction between account of profits and damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">effect of expiry of registered mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">effect of assignment of mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">delivery up or destruction of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">knowledge of infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">period of accountability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">who may sue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">basis of calculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">form of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">trade marks act 1955-1958 (cth), ss. 20 (3), 65, 82 (7).*  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">when available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">proprietary right as basis of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1968] HCA 50">effect of assignment of trade mark by plaintiff.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">damage to property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">whether damages are payable if a plaintiff undertakes more extensive rectification work than was strictly necessary to make good the damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">whether rectification work was reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">whether award of damages was theoretical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">application of bellgrove v eldridge [1954] hca 36 ; (1954) 90 clr 613 to tortious damage to property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">goods and services tax (gst)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">whether an award of damages should include the amount of gst that is part of the price of goods and services acquired to make good the damage when the plaintiff is registered for gst purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">role of ability to receive an input tax credit in deciding whether an allowance for gst should be included in damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">whether consistent with compensatory principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">taxes and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">goods and services tax (gst)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">whether an award of damages should include the amount of gst that is part of the price of goods and services acquired to make good the damage when the plaintiff is registered for gst purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">role of ability to receive an input tax credit in deciding whether an allowance for gst should be included in damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 413">whether award of damages for tortious damage to property is itself subject to gst</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">infringement of trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">determining an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">meaning of good faith for the purpose of s 92(4) of the trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">some sales not in breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">insufficient evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">whether an infringing party can claim remuneration or director's fees for carrying on the infringing activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">whether there was a failure to take into account evidence as to the proportion of infringing and non-infringing goods  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">whether a claim with respect to non-infringing sales arising from a prior relationship is made out</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWCA 413" id="cs0">149 Some awards of damages for a tort have included GST on the individual items that go to make up the quantum: eg, my judgment in Bennett v Goodwin [2005] NSWSC 930 ; (2005) 62 ATR 515 at [16] - [17] (which related to conversion of goods); Nemeth v Prynew Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 511 at [3] - [6] per Macready AsJ (which related to nuisance through removal of lateral support to land --- Piling Contractors (Qld) Pty Ltd v Prynew Pty Ltd [2008] NSWSC 118). Similarly, in Martin v London County Council [1947] KB 628 , where damages were awarded against a bailee for having failed to exercise care concerning the bailed items, the quantum of damages was assessed as the cost of replacement articles including (English) purchase tax. Other decisions have included GST in the amount properly payable under an indemnity for legal costs: my judgment in Vrkic v Otta International [2003] NSWSC 641 at [25] - [26]; Thornton v Apollo Nominees Pty Ltd [2005] TASSC 38 ; (2005) 15 Tas R 35 per Evans J. In Tenderwatch Pty Ltd v Reed Business Information Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 931 ; (2008) 78 IPR 329 at [21] , Heerey J, in quantifying the profits for which a copyright infringer was being required to account, deducted GST that the infringer had paid in the course of his infringing activities because it "reduced the actual profit or benefit derived by [the infringer] from the infringement. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 7" id="cs1">LE2003 also submits that it was incorrect for her Honour to include Edwards' claimed wages of $1000 per week to be deducted from the account of profits. When calculating the monthly costs in respect of the 38 months in question her Honour accepted and included claimed wages to Mr Edwards of $4,333 per month. This amount in our view was wrongly included. It is well-settled law that an infringing party cannot claim remuneration or director's fees for carrying on the infringing activities: see Le Plastrier  Co Ltd v Armstrong Holland (1926) 26 SR (NSW) 585 at [593]; Tenderwatch v Reed Business Information Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 931 at [17] - [19]. In reaching her conclusion as to profits her Honour took into account evidence that at earlier stages of the business LFS was not making large profits. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">re mcbain; ex parte australian catholic bishops conference  re mcbain; ex parte attorney-general (cth) ex rel australian episcopal conference of the roman catholic church  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claims in court's original jurisdiction to certiorari for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in respect of concluded federal court litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants not parties to prior litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">no parties to prior litigation instituted appeal or sought constitutional relief in respect of the judgment in that litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants include commonwealth attorney-general seeking to affirm the operation of a state law as not inconsistent with federal law within the meaning of s 109 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether claims give rise to a "matter" under ch iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether a matter arises under s 75(v) or s 76(i) of the constitution independently of the right of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether, if so, relief should be granted in the exercise of the court's discretion.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether court's original jurisdiction extends to claims to certiorari for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in respect of concluded federal court litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants not parties to prior litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether claims give rise to a "matter" under ch iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether a matter arises under s 75(v) or s 76(i) of the constitution independently of the right of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">exercise of discretion to provide such relief.  certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether available against a judge of a federal superior court in respect of non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">discretion to grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether attorney-general entitled to certiorari as of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">factors favouring discretionary refusal to grant certiorari in respect of non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in litigation to which claimants were not parties.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application by commonwealth attorney-general on the relation of another for writ of certiorari instituted out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">factors favouring non-extension of time.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">intervention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application by commonwealth attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">intervention by attorney-general to put submissions partly at odds with submissions put by relator in name of attorney-general.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">judge approached in private chambers by court counsellor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">absence of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">counsellor prospective expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">views expressed favouring one party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">reasonable apprehension that judge might not bring impartial mind to matter.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">status of court counsellor as officer of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">improper private approach by counsellor to judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law act 1975 (cth), ss.37 , 62a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 39">family law rules o.25, r.5.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">proceedings irregularly commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">application for transfer to family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">meaning of 'pending' application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">whether order to transfer constitutes an exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">meaning of 'proceedings'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">discretion of court pursuant to s.39 of the federal magistrates act 1999 .  jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">federal magistrates court's jurisdiction to determine whether a matter falls within its jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">jurisdiction of federal magistrates court to transfer a matter over which it has no jurisdiction to the family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2010] FMCAfam 440">proceedings transferred from federal magistrates court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">federal magistrates court's jurisdiction to determine whether a matter falls within its jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">jurisdiction of federal magistrates court to transfer a matter over which it has no jurisdiction to the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">whether federal magistrates court can grant an extension of time under s 477(2) of migration act 1958 (cth) in a matter over which it has no jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">federal court's original jurisdiction in relation to a migration decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">proceedings transferred from federal magistrates court  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">application filed in joint registry of federal court and federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">whether registry staff responsible for filing application in appropriate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">whether documents evinced intention to file in federal magistrates court  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">application for extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">s 477a(2) migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">no explanation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">appeal having no prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">citing from="[2007] FCA 591">application for extension of time refused</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCAfam 440" id="cs0">25 The construction I have adopted is consistent with the views expressed on a number of occasions when the issue has come before the FMC; Stewart v Pegasus Investments  Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] FMCA 712 at [9] --- [15], O'Neill v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1912 at [11] - 16]. Although there is no authority in this Court directly on point I note that in Ogawa v Phipps [2006] FCA 361 ; (2006) 151 FCR 311 , which concerned a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Finkelstein J made an order in the nature of mandamus requiring Phipps FM to order that the proceeding be transferred to the Federal Court. The matter was so transferred and addressed by the Federal Court in Ogawa v Registrar of the High Court of Australia [2006] FCA 607 , though ultimately it was dismissed by consent. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 591" id="cs1">25 The construction I have adopted is consistent with the views expressed on a number of occasions when the issue has come before the FMC; Stewart v Pegasus Investments  Holdings Pty Ltd [2004] FMCA 712 at [9] --- 15], O'Neill v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FMCA 1912 at [11] --- [16]. Although there is no authority in this Court directly on point I note that in Ogawa v Phipps [2006] FCA 361 ; (2006) 151 FCR 311 , which concerned a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Court, Finkelstein J made an order in the nature of mandamus requiring Phipps FM to order that the proceeding be transferred to the Federal Court. The matter was so transferred and addressed by the Federal Court in Ogawa v Registrar of the High Court of Australia [2006] FCA 607 , although ultimately it was dismissed by consent.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 3 Interpretation</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">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 39 Discretionary transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court or the Family Court</title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l7">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l8">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">appeal from superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">construction of total and permanent disablement under insurance policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">identification of relevant illnesses for purposes of assessment  procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">whether failure to permit complainant to make oral submissions compromised right to procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">where entitlement to make oral submissions subject to statutory discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">where complainant provided written submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1323">where complainant invited by tribunal to provide further written submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">function of superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">definition of "dependent"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">whether limited to persons who are financially dependent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">consideration of tribunal's reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 83">whether tribunal satisfied s 40 of the superannuation (resolution of complaints) act 1993 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] SCTA 8" id="cs0">The Complainant appealed from that determination to the Federal Court pursuant to s 46 of the Complaints Act. The Federal Court set aside the Tribunal's determination and ordered that the complaint be referred to the Tribunal to be determined in accordance with the directions contained in paragraph 42 of the Reasons for Judgement of the Court [1] .
DETERMINATION OF THE TRIBUNAL

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 25D Content of statements of reasons for decisions</title>
<title id="l2">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l3">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 37 Tribunal powers--complaints under section 14</title>
<title id="l4">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 40 Tribunal to give reasons</title>
<title id="l5">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 46 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from determinations of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">dismissal of proceeding for want of compliance with court's pre-trial directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">types of case where order justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">circumstances where appellate court will interfere with primary exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 520">effect of "guillotine" order which came into effect whilst proceeding stood dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">practice (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">conditional</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">self-executing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">failure to comply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">power to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">whether court functus officio</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 13">supreme court rules 1970 (nsw) pt 2 , r 3, pt 40 , r 9(4), (5).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 29 Notification of parties affected</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 223 Native title</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 225 Determination of native title</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">subpoena to produce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">public interest immunity privilege claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">rejection of claim by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">ex parte in camera hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">duty of full disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">re-hearing of interlocutory applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 413">notice to produce.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">discovery of extracts of documents rather than whole documents on the grounds of irrelevance and legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">masking of parts or sections of discovered documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">application for inspection of unredacted documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">whether oath of discovery conclusive as to relevance of extracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">whether entitlement to mask exists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">interpretation of 'document'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">orders 26 and 37 rules of the supreme court 1971 (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2009] WASC 67">relevance of o 1 r 4a and r 4b to masking of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 123">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 123">public interest immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 123">application for leave to appeal from dismissal of claim to resist production of documents tending to identify informer(s) to the australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">representative proceeding claiming breach of continuous disclosure obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">investigation by australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">where applicant served subpoena duces tecum on asic to produce certain documents and transcripts in its possession following investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">objection to production by asic on grounds of public interest immunity privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">where application heard ex parte to preserve subject-matter of asic claim for public interest immunity privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">public interest immunity privilege claim rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1659">confidential reasons.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">conspiracy to effect a purpose that is unlawful under a law of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">proposed borrowing in contravention of financial agreement 1927</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 57 , 61 , 105a , 128</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">constitution alteration (state debts) 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement 1927, cll. 3, 4, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1928 (cth), s. 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement validation act 1929 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1944 (cth), s. 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">crimes act 1914 (cth), s. 86.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">subpoena duces tecum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim of privilege by crown and individual litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">scope of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">cabinet documents and similar papers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">prior publication by tabling in parliament and otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">disclosure of proceedings of parliament without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">private prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">difficulty of proving charges without production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">form of affidavits claiming privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">balance of competing interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">justices act, 1902 (n.s.w.), s. 26.  declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">jurisdiction in relation to criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">commital proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim for declaration by informant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">supreme court act, 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 75</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">high court rules, o. 26, r. 19.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>