Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 137">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 137">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 137">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 137">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 137">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 137">applicant a citizen of china claiming well founded fear of persecution for reason of political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 137">credibility.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">no error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1034">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1034">information incorporated in visa application republished to refugee review tribunal is within s 424a(3)(b) migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">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="cp4.4">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="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether information given to tribunal for the purpose of the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">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="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether tribunal gave particulars of information, explained its relevance, and invited comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether failure to do these things jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether discretion should be exercised to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">appeal from judgment of the federal magistrates court -change of circumstance (residence) (class ag) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">definition of "special need relative"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no error shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1558">no question of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">re the minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte durairajasingham  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">application in original jurisdiction of high court for prerogative relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations and evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">whether tribunal failed to consider all available inferences from evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">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="cp6.7">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="cp6.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">role of the high court under the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 1">extent of high court's jurisdiction to grant certiorari pursuant to s 75(v) of the constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">applicant afforded the opportunity to comment on "information" within the meaning of s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">tribunal not obliged to put to the applicant for comment its subjective appraisals of the applicant's oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">information before a previously constituted tribunal is information before the tribunal that forms part of the applicant's application for review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">determinative issues put to the applicant for comment either at the hearing or in writing by way of the tribunal's letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">applicant was afforded procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">complaint does not rise above impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1331">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 827">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 827">exception to s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) contained in s 424a(3)(b) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 827">republication of material in protection visa application to refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 827">whether answers to questions asked by tribunal member sufficient to constitute republication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 827">whether written communication from an appellant is necessary for republication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 827">whether appellant aware of the significance of the information relied upon by the tribunal when applicant did not have a copy of his statutory declaration to the department at the tribunal hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">applicant claimed refugee review tribunal did not consider the "whole of her case"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">applicant seeking impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">no failure by tribunal to consider a claim or integer of a claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">difference in applicant's claims in protection visa application and claims before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">tribunal's analysis did not involve unreasonable thought process or illogicality of analysis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">information provided by applicant for purposes of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">no s.424a error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 754">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 705">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 705">application for judicial review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 705">jurisdictional error asserted in general terms but no specific jurisdictional error identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 705">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 277">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 277">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 277">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 277">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 277">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 200">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 46">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 46">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 46">whether tribunal failed to comply with ss.424 , 424a , 425 or 441a of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 46">standard of interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 46">whether failure to have regard to relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 46">whether unreasonable or no evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">applicant claims he was targeted by local authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">tribunal complied with s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">applicant expressly adopted claims contained in statement attached to protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">no denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">country information falls within exceptions in s.424a(3)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">information not within s.424a(3)(b) unless put forward as evidence "in chief"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">where applicant affirms a specific fact before tribunal that information is covered by s.424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">matter for a tribunal what weight it assigns to information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.10">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.11">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1839">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1833">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1833">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1833">whether refugee review tribunal breached s.424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1833">whether it was reasonable for the applicant to relocate within india</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1833">whether relocation finding was a separate and independent finding unaffected by error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">claims to fear persecution on the basis of religion and ethnicity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">tribunal's comments in relation to inconsistencies in the applicant's previous evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">whether derived from the protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">information given in relation to the protection visa application republished before the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1725">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1645">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1645">consideration of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1645">consideration of whether information capable of being characterised as given to the refugee review tribunal by the appellant for the purposes of s 424a(3)(b) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1645">consideration of whether a request made of the refugee review tribunal by the appellant is a 'republication'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1645">consideration of the true character of a complaint made to the tribunal that the delegate of the minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs failed to consider the facts, circumstances and contentions concerning the appellant's application for a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1645">consideration of whether such a request constitutes an invitation to the tribunal to consider all material put by the appellant to the minister in support of a protection visa application in conducting a review for the purposes of the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">applicant is a citizen of people's republic of china claiming fear of persecution for reason of imputed political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">whether tribunal breached migration act 1958 (cth) ss.424 , 424a or 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1766">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">refusal of protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">applicants claiming persecution in china as christians</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">whether the rrt failed to deal with corroborative evidence considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">whether the rrt hearing was fair considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">whether rrt reasoning illogical considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">whether the rrt breached s.424a of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1042">whether the rrt able to rely upon findings and reasons of a previous tribunal where its decision had been quashed considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1480">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1480">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1480">visa cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1480">prior inconsistent statement apparently made by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1480">mrt's obligations of disclosure under s.359a of the migration act 1958 (cth) considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1480">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1480">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1142">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1142">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1142">nepali student feared return</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1142">claim that family extorted by maoists and persecuted by government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1142">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1142">no jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 930">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 930">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 930">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 930">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 930">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1331" id="cs0">19. In all, on the material that is before the Court, the information relied on by the Tribunal was either information provided by the applicant himself for the purposes of the review, information that was the subject of a letter pursuant to s.424A(1) of the Act, or information in the nature of independent country information which falls within the exception contained in s.424A(3)(a) of the Act from the requirements of s.424A(1) and (2) of the Act. But I note, as submitted by Mr Mitchell, that in any event, with reference to SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 (at [16]), that to the extent that any findings of the Tribunal were based on the applicant's answers to questions asked at the hearing, those answers were given by the applicant for the purposes of the application to the Tribunal, notwithstanding that the questions may have been informed by material that did not form part of that application.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 827" id="cs1">

21 There is no evidence that the Tribunal provided any notification to the appellant, in advance of the hearing date, that the statutory declaration would be relied upon. Further, the Tribunal was not invited by the appellant by a written communication before or at the hearing to consider the information in his declaration which would have activated the exemption: see M55 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 131 , SZDMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1034 and SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 , nor did the appellant bring the statutory declaration to the hearing. These facts suggest that the statutory declaration was not regarded by the appellant as being significant in his application before the Tribunal. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 754" id="cs2">SZEEU (at [91], [173] and [264]) held that information does not cease to be information given for the purpose of the application for review, even if it can also be derived from an alternative source. To the extent, therefore, that the Tribunal relies on what it says is information in the protection visa application, and that this "differs significantly from what was said at the hearing", this information, having been provided by the applicant subsequently (republished) for the purposes of the review, is brought within the exception contained in s.424A(3)(b) of the Act . (See also SZDMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1034 at [6] , SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 611 , and SZEPI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1645). 37. Given the situation as set out immediately above, it is not necessary to consider the Minister's second basis for asserting that there is no breach of s.424A of the Act in relation to this information.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 671" id="cs3">19 Barnes FM was correct to find that the appellant had republished to the Tribunal the information which he had provided to the Department in his protection visa application. Accordingly, although the information provided to the Department falls within the meaning of information for the purposes of s 424A(1) , the Tribunal was entitled to rely on such information concerning the appellant's activities in the church due to the exception provided by s 424A(3)(b) of the Act: see SZHIB v Minister or Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 at [8] ; NAZY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2005] FCA 744 at [36] - [37]; SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 2 at [20] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 792" id="cs4">14 Furthermore, the Federal Magistrate found that there was republication of the appellant's claims, made in his protection visa application, in the statements of the appellant at hearing and in the pre-hearing submission. This meant that s 424A(3)(b) applied and there was no obligation on the Tribunal to comply with the procedures stipulated in s 424A(1): see SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611 at [23] .
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 705" id="cs5">In SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 Young J at [8] referred to a letter that accompanied the appellant's application for review to the Tribunal in which the appellant stated amongst other things that he did not think that the First Respondent's delegate had considered all of his claims fairly and carefully and had repeatedly in that letter referred to the claims which his Honour found must be read as a reference to detailed claims set out in an earlier statutory declaration.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 116" id="cs6">20 The Minister submits that the information provided by the appellant in his Protection visa application including that relating to his claims concerning the establishment of bible study groups, the black list and his alleged detention was republished to the Tribunal. Such information was provided by him to the Tribunal in his statutory declaration dated 20 December 2004 for the purposes of review. Accordingly the Minister submits that the information falls within the exception in s 424A(3)(b) of the Act and relies upon the decision in SZDMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1034 at [6] ; SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 611 at [23] .  33 The Tribunal could not have properly reviewed the Minister's decision pursuant to the invitation to review the appellant's claims without having regard to the claims in the Protection visa application. In this way, the appellant re-published those claims. The same considerations referred to by Gyles J in NBKT v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCAFC 195 and by Young J in SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 611 apply. The information contained in the Protection visa application was given by the appellant to the Tribunal as provided in s 424A(3)(b) of the Act by virtue of the re-publication. It follows that there is no breach of s 424A(1) of the Act. 9 The Tribunal's decision refers to the appellant's claims that he was a key member of an underground church and had successfully set up three bible study groups; that he was detained for almost two weeks in April 2004. The information relating to these matters was not contained in the Application for Review nor in the declaration provided by the appellant to the Tribunal. However Raphael FM considered s 424A of the Act and held that these claims had nevertheless been republished by the appellant for the purposes of his application for review to the Tribunal. Raphael FM stated at [13]:

 'All three of these claims are made originally in the protection visa application, but in his application to the Tribunal, the applicant squarely put all these matters in issue by saying that he did not think the delegate had considered all his claims fairly three times at [CB55], [CB56] and [CB59]. Ms Wong rightly points out that this type of submission by an applicant to the Tribunal which refers directly to the matters considered by the delegate are matters which fall within the exception stated in s.424A(3)(b) of the Act: SZDNG [sic] v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1034 at [6] ; SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611 at [23] . ' </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 277" id="cs7">Ms Pepper referred the Court to SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611 at [23] where Young J said:

 23.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 200" id="cs8">All such information was therefore given by the applicant to the Tribunal for the purposes of the application, and fell within the exception stated in s.424A (3)(b) of the Act : SZDMJ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1034 ; SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 368" id="cs9">10 The other aspect of this ground of appeal is that the Tribunal relied upon information which related to the circumstances under which the appellant left China. The Tribunal did observe that the appellant left China legally and on a passport issued in his own name. The Tribunal thought it unlikely in all the circumstances that the Chinese authorities would have permitted the appellant to depart on his own passport if in fact they were seeking to persecute him as he alleged in his protection visa application. The appellant seems to contend in this ground of appeal that the fact the he left the country on his own passport and in his own name was information of the kind that ought to have been given to him in the way required by s 424A(1) of the Act. However, it is established in judgments of this court to which the Federal Magistrate referred, namely, M55 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 131 at [25] and SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 , that where information originating in the details provided by an applicant for the purposes of his protection visa application is effectively republished in the applicant's application for review in the Tribunal, it falls within the exclusion set out in s 424A(3)(b). That is to say, it is proper to treat such information thereafter as information given by the applicant for the purposes of the application. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 46" id="cs10">What the applicant said in the letter to the Tribunal was similar to the content of a letter to the Tribunal considered by Young J in SZHIB v MIMA [2006] FCA 611 at [8] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1839" id="cs11">Further, and with reference to Jacobson J. in NAZY v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 744 (" NAZY ") at [36]-[39], that it was an adoption "in chief". The submission was that this was not a "mere adoption" of the earlier statement in the course of a hearing before the Tribunal ( SZEEU at [20]). When viewed objectively the import of what the applicant put in his application for review was that he wanted the Tribunal to consider the whole of his earlier statement as an account of his claims (see SZGGT v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 435 at [50] , and also SZHIB v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 at [23] ). 11. I should also note that what Jacobson J. said in NAZY was expressly approved by Moore J. in SZEEU (at [20]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1833" id="cs12">For example, where an applicant had said "please refer to my previous statement for further information" ( VUAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1271 at [13] per Merkel J); where an applicant had included in his application for review a statutory declaration consisting of a critical examination of the reasons given by the delegate, in the course of which, the applicant referred several times to claims originally made ( SZDMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1034 at [5] - [6] per Gyles J); where an applicant's application for review is accompanied by a letter that complained that his claims had not been dealt with fairly and carefully by the delegate ( SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 at [16] per Young J).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1725" id="cs13">In the case before me, the applicant was not subject to any questioning, or cross-examination, by the Tribunal, but provided this statement, adopting the contents of his earlier statement, by way of a statutory declaration made by him, and sent to the Tribunal by his migration adviser. 21. Mr. Kennett referred the Court to Young J. in SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 , on appeal from this Court, a Judgement that was given post SZEEU . In that case the source of the statement adopting the earlier statements made to the Minister's Department was contained in a letter accompanying the application for review. At [8] in SZHIB His Honour stated:

 "The appellant's application for review to the Tribunal was accompanied by his letter dated 20 April 2005.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1645" id="cs14">12 The First Respondent says that since the Appellant 'republished' the relevant information to the Tribunal for the purposes of the application before the Tribunal, the Tribunal acted in a way entirely consistent with the principles identified in the following decisions of the Full Court of the Federal Court; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Al Shamry (2001) 110 FCR 27 ; and SZEEU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 2 ; and the principles identified by the High Court in SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005) 215 ALR 162 ; and notions of 'republication', discussed in the following decisions of the Federal Court; SZDMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1034 ; and SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 611.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1766" id="cs15">The other decisions to which I have been referred are SZHIB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 , which is an appeal not only from this Court but an appeal from an earlier decision of mine, and SZDMJ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1034.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1042" id="cs16">Mr Potts also took me to the decision of Young J in SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611 at [8] and [23] [9] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1480" id="cs17">Indeed since SZEEU the decisions of Tamberlin J in SZCJY [6] and Young J in SZHIB [7] both assume that the position in relation to republication of the PVA is as stated by Gray J in M55 .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1249" id="cs18">Ms Wong rightly points out that this type of submission by an applicant to the Tribunal which refers directly to matters considered by the delegate are matters which fall within the exception stated in s.424A(3)(b) of the Act: SZDNG v Minister for Immigration [2005] FCA 1034 at [6] ; SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611 at [23].</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1142" id="cs19">I therefore do not need to address whether, if some information was taken from the applicant's original written statement accompanying his visa application, this was information "re-published" to the Tribunal by reason of references to it in the submissions of the applicant's advisor (counsel for the Minister cited SZHIB v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 611 at [8] and [23], and SZGGT v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 435 at [36] and [42]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 930" id="cs20">In SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611 at [16] , Young J found that republication had occurred when that applicant's application for review was accompanied by a letter in which the applicant stated:

 i) He did not think his claim had been dealt with fairly and carefully by the delegate of the Minister;
 ii) It is difficult to believe that the delegate of the Minister had carefully considered his claim having regard to the fact that he had provided those items in detail; and
 iii) He did not think that his claim was carefully considered by the delegate. The decision, SZHIB v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 611 (" SZHIB "), had been made on 8 May 2006 but as at this scheduled hearing was not yet published.</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">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">applicant nabd of 2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">appellant, an iranian, sought a protection visa on the basis that he had converted to christianity after leaving iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugee review tribunal twice affirmed decision to refuse the appellant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">relying on information contained in a country profile, the tribunal distinguished between christians in iran who quietly go about their devotions and those who actively or conspicuously proselytise, and considered that only the latter group would encounter a real chance of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal asked itself a wrong question by seeking to categorise the way in which the appellant expressed his beliefs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal addressed whether appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution on the ground of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">whether tribunal had committed jurisdictional error similar to the error identified in appellant s395/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs .  international human rights law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">ground of religion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 29">freedom of religion as a basic human right.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">appeal from magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">whether the pressure on homosexual to marry amounts to persecution for a convention reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">whether refugee review tribunal failed to consider essential element of claimpractice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">judgments of single judges of federal court not binding on federal magistrates where not exercising appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 41">judicial comity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 297">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 297">whether order dismissing application for an order nisi is interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 297">whether leave to appeal is required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">appellant s395/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  appellant s396/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">particular social group identified as homosexual men in bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether error of law by refugee review tribunal in finding that no real chance of persecution because appellants conducted themselves discreetly and would continue to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether finding had effect of requiring appellants to act discreetly to avoid persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether need to act discreetly to avoid serious harm constituted persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 647">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 647">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 647">second application to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 647">previous decision upheld on judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 647">tribunal correctly declined jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 647">application dismissed at show-cause hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 647">no further filings direction to registry.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] HCASL 20" id="cs0">The history of those proceedings can be gathered from judgments recorded as NABE of 2002 v MIMA [2002] FCA 1410 , NABE v MIMA [2003] FCA 155 , S116 of 2003 v MIMA  Anor [2006] FMCA 119 , S116 of 2003 v MIMA [2006] FCA 618 and Applicant S116 of 2003 v MIMA  Anor [2006] HCA Trans 698.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 887" id="cs1">3 I should add to the reasons I have just given that this application is made against a background of the applicant having litigated in this Court, the Federal Magistrates Court and the High Court on a number of occasions: see NABE of 2002 v Minister for Immigration [2002] FCA 1410 ; NABE v Minister for Immigration [2003] FCA 155 ; Applicant S116 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 119 ; Applicant S116 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 618 ; Applicant S116 of 2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] HCATrans 698.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 647" id="cs2">The applicant's judicial review litigation was extensive, involving two excursions through the lower Courts to the High Court of Australia (see NABE of 2002 v MIMA [2002] FCA 1410 , NABE v MIMA [2003] FCA 155, S116 of 2003 v MIMA  Anor [2006] FMCA 119, S116 of 2003 v MIMA [2006] FCA 618 , and Applicant S116 of 2003 v MIMA  Anor [2006] HCATrans 698).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 116 Power to cancel</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">proceedings in connection with sequestration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">whether stay of execution of sequestration order may or should be granted pending appeal.   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">application for stay of sequestration order pending appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">whether express statutory denial of power to rescind, discharge or suspend operation of sequestration order precludes such stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">bankruptcy act provided maximum 21 days stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">power under federal court rules to order stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1442">whether court bound by time limit under bankruptcy act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 598">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 598">application for leave to commence proceedings against bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 598">whether family court proceedings "in respect of" a provable debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 598">whether grant of leave would further policy of bankruptcy act 1966 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 328">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 328">leave to continue supreme court proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 328">complex facts and law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 328">the involvement of other parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 328">no need to determine if leave is required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 328">leave granted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 328" id="cs0">If the official receiver disallowed the claim in whole or in part, an appeal on this isolated issue could be brought to the Bankruptcy Court. But in these circumstances, the issues would have been determined in a less satisfactory way and questions between Mr Allanson and the other parties to the action would not be resolved: (1977) 30 FLR at 114.

See also: Westpac Banking Corporation v Ollis [2007] FCA 1194 at [18] to [20] per Cowdroy J. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 52 Proceedings and order on creditor's petition</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 58 Vesting of property upon bankruptcy--general rule</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 58A Vesting of property upon bankruptcy--effect of orders in force under the proceeds of crime law</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 82 Debts provable in bankruptcy [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l7">CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY ACT 1990 - SECT 5 Proceedings are civil, not criminal</title>
<title id="l8">CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY ACT 1990 - SECT 52 Protection for financial institution-money laundering</title>
<title id="l9">CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY ACT 1990 - SECT 58 Effect of death of person involved</title>
<title id="l10">CRIMINAL ASSETS RECOVERY ACT 1990 - SECT 58A Effect of death of joint owner of restrained property</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">passive investors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">whether directors' remuneration and restriction of dividends oppressive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">turns on own facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">property available for payment of debts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">voluntary settlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">avoidance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">settlement void as against trustee if not in favour of purchaser for valuable consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">nominal consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">whether sufficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 44">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), s. 120(1)(a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">matrimonial causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">proceedings with respect to the property of the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">alteration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">judicail discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">whether equality of division to be presumed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">function of appellate court on appeal from exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">valuation of assets for division in matrimonial proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">shares in proprietary company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 21">family law act 1975 (cth),s. 79.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">estate duty (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">shares in unlisted companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">valuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">majority and minority interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">restrictions on transfer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 2">estate duty assessment act 1914-1957 (cth), s. 16a*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">offer and acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">acceptance by conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">conduct evidencing acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">principles relating to the inference of a contract from conduct and silence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">negotiations between parties' solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">no response to last letter from offeror</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">whether offer accepted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">whether final mutual assent to offercontracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">subsequent conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 96">test to determine whether acceptance of offer can be inferred from subsequent conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1975">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1975">winding up application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1975">sole member, sole director company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1975">member bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1975">order that company be wound up and trustee in bankruptcy be appointed as liquidator</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWCA 96" id="cs0">128 The disposition of the Supreme Court proceedings also had the potential to affect the parties' interests in the Rehab shares. The primary relief sought in those proceedings was the appointment of a Receiver and Manager of the Property, alternatively the appointment of a provisional liquidator. The proceedings were brought pursuant to s 232 of the Corporations Law. In addition to the orders Mr Kitas sought, the Court also had a discretion, if satisfied one of the grounds in s 232 was established, to make an order for the purchase of any shares by any member: s 233(1)(d) Corporations Law. In deciding whether to make such an order, the Court would no doubt take into consideration the restrictions on the transfer of shares in the Rehab Shareholder's Deed, although such a restriction could not bind the exercise of the discretionary power. The presence of such a restrictive provision could be relevant to the valuation of the shares for the purpose of determining the price to be paid for the court-ordered transfer: see Rambaldi; in the matter of Philip Charles Weeden, a bankrupt v Weeden [2008] FCA 1597 (at [39] --- [46]) per Heerey J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1975" id="cs1">5 In those circumstances, two issues arise on the present application. The first is whether it was open to Mr Pascoe to rely upon the provisions of s 1072C of the Act. I have been taken this afternoon to a number of authorities which deal with the effect of that section. The decision of Campbell J in the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Buffier (2005) ACSR 839 seems to me plainly to support the applicability of s 1072C to authorise Mr Pascoe to pass the resolution. Other authorities to the same effect include the decision of Sackville J in Prentice v Cummins [2002] FCA 1165 at [7] ; the decision of Hasluck J in Nilant v RL  KW Nominees Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 105 ; and the decision of Heerey J in Rambaldi; in the matter of Weeden, a bankrupt v Weeden [2008] FCA 1597 at [40] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 120 Undervalued transactions</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 121 Transfers to defeat creditors</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 232 Grounds for Court order</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 461 General grounds on which company may be wound up by Court</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1072C Rights of trustee of estate of bankrupt shareholder</title>
<title id="l9">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l10">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 79 Exception: opinions based on specialised knowledge</title>
<title id="l11">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l12">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 18 Accounting period</title>
<title id="l13">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 120 Deductions allowable to co-operative company</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs v nystrom  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">cancellation of visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where minister purported to cancel a "transitional (permanent) visa" on the basis of the respondent failing the character test in s 501(6) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had a substantial criminal record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent had lived in australia since he was 27 days old</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where respondent held an "absorbed person visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the respondent also held a "transitional (permanent) visa"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether as a matter of construction the act allowed the respondent to hold both an "absorbed person visa" and a "transitional (permanent) visa".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">decision of minister under s 501(2) or s 503 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether there was a misdescription of a visa which invalidated the minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether a failure to take into account relevant considerations invalidated a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's cancellation of a "transitional (permanent) visa" and disregard of the "absorbed person visa" amounted to jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 501f(3) would operate to cancel both visas.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">expressum facit cessare tacitum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where s 201 of the act excludes certain persons from the scope of the minister's power to deport pursuant to s 200 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">where the respondent was a person covered by s 201 and also not an object of the power to deport pursuant to s 200</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 201 of the act confers a protection against deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the subject matter of ss 200 , 201 and 501 of the act is the same, dealing with the removal of persons who have been convicted of offences from australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether the minister's lack of power to deport the respondent under s 200 limits the minister's power to cancel a visa under s 501</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 50">whether s 501 repugnant to ss 200 and 201 so as to necessitate s 501 being read subject to ss 200 and 201 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">re patterson; ex parte taylor  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">naturalisation and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">meaning of "aliens" in s 51(xix)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">law empowering cancellation of visa of "non-citizen"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether such a law, applied to a british subject who has lived in australia for over 33 years, is a law with respect to naturalisation and aliens.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">external affairs power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether s 51 (xxix) supports application of s 501(3) of migration act 1958 (cth) to the prosecutor, a british subject who has lived in australia for over 33 years.   constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">meaning of "minister" in s 64 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether parliamentary secretary constituted the "minister" for the purpose of s 64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether parliamentary secretary constituted "the minister personally" for the purpose of s 501(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth).  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">power of minister to cancel a visa on character grounds under s 501(3) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">prosecutor had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more and accordingly had a "substantial criminal record"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">substantial criminal record grounds for failure of character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">prosecutor could not possibly pass the character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">respondent invited prosecutor to make representations to her to have the decision revoked under s 501c(4) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">only ground for revocation was that prosecutor passed the character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether invitation to make representations evinced misunderstanding of nature of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether misunderstanding amounted to a constructive failure of jurisdiction. immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">power of minister to cancel a visa on character grounds under s 501(3) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">requirement that decision be in national interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">meaning of "national interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2001] HCA 51">whether minister in this case satisfied that decision in national interest.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">appeal from decision of single judge of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">amendment to raise issues not before trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">applicant british subject migrated to australia as child with family in 1954 prior to commencement of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">applicant remained in australia at all times after entry but is not an australian citizen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">respondent minister purported to cancel on character grounds a transitional (permanent) visa said to be held by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">whether applicant was the "holder" of a transitional (permanent) visa as sought to be cancelled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">whether a transitional (permanent) visa is "granted" for purposes of s 501(2) migration act so as to be susceptible of cancellation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">whether minister purported to cancel absorbed person visa directly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 132">appeal allowed though without identification of error on the part of the trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">no duty on the part of the tribunal to "investigate"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">assessment and use of independent country information a matter for the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">no failure to address applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">tribunal applied the correct test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">no bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1698">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 132" id="cs0">82 Finally, even if the question was whether Mr Sales had 'permission to enter or remain in Australia' in the relevant sense, the answer would be in the negative. No such permission was required ( Manatiy v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 28 at [2] ). The absence of any relevant prohibition does not amount to an act that could be described as 'permission'. Even if an Australian official were present on arrival and allowed, in the sense of not impeding, the entry of the family into Australia, this could not be described as the grant of 'permission to enter Australia' as required. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1698" id="cs1">18. This is a matter to which s.422B of the Act applies to make the matters set out in Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act the applicable exhaustive statement of the natural justice hearing rule (absent bias). The Tribunal does have discretionary powers to investigate pursuant to s.424 and s. 427 (1)(d) of the Act , but there is no duty to so investigate (see SZGQN v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 28 at [28] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 267" id="cs2">

1 Mrs Manatiy has applied unsuccessfully to this Court to challenge a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal refusing her visa application: Manatiy v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2007] FCA 28.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 4 Object of Act</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 6 Effect of limited meaning of enter Australia etc.</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 7 Act to extend to certain Territories</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 9 Certain sea installations to be part of Australia</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 11 Visa applicable to 2 or more persons</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 29 Visas</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 34 Absorbed person visas</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 1989 - SECT 5 After section 5C of the Principal Act the following sections are inserted in Part I:</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 1989 - SECT 6 (1) Divisions 1 and 1A of Part II of the Principal Act are repealed and the following Divisions are substituted:</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l14">MIGRATION REFORM (TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS) REGULATIONS </title>
<title id="l15">MIGRATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 1994 </title>
<title id="l16">MIGRATION REFORM ACT 1992 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2000] WASCA 69">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2000] WASCA 69">application for security of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2000] WASCA 69">appeal from master refusing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2000] WASCA 69">what is required to establish "credible testimony"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 110">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 110">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 110">application against plaintiff corporation under s.1335 of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 110">meaning of "will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if successful" discussed.  corporations law, sub-s.1335(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 571">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 571">multiple offers of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 571">judgment in favour of party making offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 571">whether party making offer entitled to costs on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 571">whether offers made were unreasonable and imprudent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 571">held final offer made was reasonable and prudent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 571">held failure to accept final offer made was imprudent.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] SADC 93" id="cs0">It was accepted before me that the learned Master identified the appropriate test to be applied. The learned Master identified case law to the effect that the mere fact that a corporate plaintiff has a minimal paid-up capital and acts as a trustee company is sufficient to constitute "credible evidence". Reference was then made by the learned Master to Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA [5] where Finn J referred (with approval) at paragraph 12 to an earlier decision of the Federal Court where Heery J had said:

 Today's companies with very small paid-up capital may be solvent and prosperous while others with balance sheets showing impressive sums in this regard may have no more than wistful memories of past glories to show creditors. [6]

  GROOVE IS IN THE PARK PTY LTD v BIG XITY ENTERTAINMENT  ORS

 [2010] SADC 93

 Judgment of His Honour Judge Lovell

 22 July 2010

 PROCEDURE - COSTS - SECURITY FOR COSTS

Appeal against a decision of a Master refusing an application by the third defendant for security for costs - appeal pursuant to s 43 of the District Court Act 1991 and District Court Civil Rules 2006 r 286 - appeal dismissed. District Court Act 1991 (SA) s 43 ; District Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA) r 194, r 286; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1335 , referred to. House v The King [1936] HCA 40 ; (1936) 55 CLR 499 ; Mullett v Gabriel (1989) 52 SASR 330 ; Mac Audio  Acoustical Consultants Pty Ltd v Eddy  Anor [1999] SASC 443 ; Lucke v Cleary  Ors [2009] SADC 137 ; Jewel River Pty Ltd v Captured Pty Ltd [2009] SADC 2 ; Bennett v WMC (Olympic Dam Corporation) Pty Ltd  Ors [2008] SADC 42 ; FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v Mining Australia Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 69 ; (2000) 22 WAR 241 , [11] and [12]; Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA [2007] FCA 56 ; Microcorp Pty Ltd v Terran Computers Pty Ltd, Peter Desmond Nunn, Philip Robert Hempel, Phillip Andrew Grasso and Vlado Joseph Dancevic (unreported Fed Court 19 December 1991); Epping Plaza Fresh Fruit and Vegetables Pty Ltd v Bevendale Pty Ltd [1992] 2 VR 191 ; Second Lenbourne Pty Ltd v Beagle Management Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 486 ; Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9 ; (1979) 142 CLR 531 ; Appleglen Pty Ltd v Mainzeal Corporation Pty Ltd (1988) 79 ALR 634 ; Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 ; (2003) 214 CLR 118 , considered. GROOVE IS IN THE PARK PTY LTD v BIG XITY ENTERTAINMENT  ORS
 [2010] SADC 93

 Nasir bin Olu Dara Jones who performs under the mononym Nas is an American rapper and actor. [1] The plaintiff is a promoter of concerts in Australia and the first defendant organizes tours in Australia for American artists.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] SASC 267" id="cs1">Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 r 194; Corporations Act 2001 s 1335 , referred to. FFE Minerals Australia Pty Ltd v Mining Australia Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 69 ; (2000) 22 WAR 241 , applied. Haoma Mining NL v Carpentaria Gold Pty Ltd [2002] QSC 425 ; Interwest Ltd v Tricontinental Corporation Ltd  Anor (1991) 5 ACSR 621 ; Fat-Sel Pty Ltd v Brambles Holdings Ltd (1985) 3 ACLC 312 ; Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottweg GMBH  Co [2007] FCA 56 , discussed. RIMHART NOMINEES PTY LTD v GLENENT PTY LTD  BAULDERSTONE HORNIBROOK PTY LTD
 [2009] SASC 267

 Miscellaneous Appeal

 ANDERSON J.
 Introduction
 This is an appeal from a decision of a master who refused an application by the second defendant Baulderstone Hornibrook Pty Ltd ("Baulderstone") for an order for security for costs. Mr Dal Cin submitted that even if the assets were to be given their auction value, consideration should be given to the value of the respondent's enterprise as a going concern. Mr Dal Cin referred to the decision of Quinn J in Olivaylle Pty Ltd v Flottweg GMBH  Co [2007] FCA 56 in which the applicant had refused to provide evidence of its ability to pay an adverse costs order. Quinn J found that there is no onus on the applicant to adduce such evidence and he emphasised that the court has a wide discretion to grant security. Quinn J took into account the fact that the applicant seemed to have a substantial business and that there was no evidence to suggest it would be unable to pay its debts, in deciding not to make an order for security for costs against it. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 571" id="cs2">The then docket judge had made directions on 27 July 2007 which required Olivaylle to file its material on or before 7 September 2007. Flottweg had made earlier that year one unsuccessful application for security for costs: Olivaylle Pty Ltd (ACN 080 670 640) v Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA (ABN 95 101 547 424) [2007] FCA 56 (It was shortly to make another: Olivaylle Pty Ltd (ACN 080 670 640) v Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA (ABN 95 101 547 424) (No 2) [2007] FCA 1892 , heard 14 September 2007). Olivaylle had the benefit of a costs order in its favour from the earlier application. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1892" id="cs3">1 This is the second application that has been made by the respondent, Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA, for security for costs in this matter. In February of this year I dismissed the first application: see Olivaylle Pty Ltd (ACN 080 670 640) v Flottweg GMBH  Co KGAA (ABN 95 101 547 424) [2007] FCA 56. I incorporate by reference those reasons into the present ones. It is unnecessary for present purposes that I reiterate the background facts referred to on the first application as also the statement of applicable principles which are not now in controversy. The only additional matter to which I would make reference is that in addition to relying upon s 1335 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) the respondent also invokes the court's jurisdiction to order security under s 56 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1335 Costs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">stoppage of work because of death of employee on unrelated site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">claim by union for employees to be paid for period of stoppage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">industrial action in support of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether claim reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">admitted breaches of statutory prohibition on payment for period of industrial action and on claiming payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">penalty agreed to by employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">appropriate penalty for breach by union. workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">union claim that numerous employees should be paid for single period of industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">employees paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether one breach or multiple breaches of statute. penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">contravention of statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">agreement between applicant and employer on amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">seriousness of breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">objects of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">individual and general deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">totality principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">patrick stevedores operations no 2 pty ltd  ors v  maritime union of australia  ors  high court and federal judiciary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">power under s 298u of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) and s 23 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) to grant interlocutory injunctions to restrict purported termination of labour supply agreements, termination of employment of employees, obtaining stevedoring services, engaging in conduct having the effect of termination employment of employees, and engaging in conduct having the effect of the divestment of assets or dealing with assets otherwise than in the ordinary course of business.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">mareva injunctions and other interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether within jurisdiction of the federal court of australia to grant injunction with the effect of fettering discretion of administrators appointed under pt 5.3a of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether effect of such injunction requires company to trade while insolvent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether injunction necessary to prevent frustration of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether confined to maintaining status quo at the time of making application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether available to protect the subject matter of litigation conferring greater rights than when application made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether appropriate on balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">effect on third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">exercise of supervisory jurisdiction.  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">appointment of administrators under pt 5.3a of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">powers and duties in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">personal liability in administration of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">jurisdiction of court fettering discretion of administrators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">jurisdiction of court to make orders compelling administrators to retain employees and to trade while insolvent contrary to responsibilities under the corporations law.  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">stevedoring industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether restructuring of companies so as to remove assets from employer company with the effect of dismissing, injuring or altering the position of employees by reason of their membership of a union contravenes pt xa of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">nature of interlocutory injunctive relief available under s 298u of that act. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">joint or several tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.26">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.27">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory injunction an appropriate remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.28">cited from="[1998] HCA 30">whether interlocutory mandatory injunction an appropriate remedy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 58">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 58">adverse action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 58">where applicant alleged that employer took adverse action against the employee in response to a pay claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 58">where employee claimed that he was verbally abused and intimidated as a result of his claim and was denied an opportunity for promotion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 58">where employer suspended all international postings from brisbane</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 58">whether all or any of these actions caused an injury to the employee in his employment or altered his position to his prejudice.  coercion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 58">whether intimidatory treatment and suspension were motivated by an intent to coerce the employee to not pursue his claim.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">appeals from decisions of federal magistrates court summarily dismissing proceedings on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">meaning of provisions in pt 16 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1470">freedom of association.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">unfair practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">optometry services and sale of optical products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 340">fair trading act 1999 (vic), s 9 , s 12 , s 19 and part 11.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 58" id="cs0">Although the notion of " singling out " may be a useful way of characterising a particular injury in employment and has been endorsed in subsequent authorities; Byrne v Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 66 ; Community  Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2001] FCA 267 ; (2001) 104 IR 195 at 199, it does not in itself constitute the injurious treatment. I am of the view that " injury " in this context continues to refer to the deprivation of one of the more immediate practical incidents of employment; Childs v Metropolitan Transport Trust (1981) IAS Current Review 946 ; Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority [1999] FCA 899 ; (1999) 165 ALR 67. This view is supported by a consideration of the circumstances which have given rise to a finding of injury in employment. These include the forced removal of a worker from a worksite; Construction Forestry Mining  Energy Union v Hamberger [2003] FCAFC 38 , the attempted transfer of an employee to a worksite a considerable distance from her home and subsequent suspension in response to her refusal to relocate; Byrne v Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd (supra), and stand down; Squires v Flight Stewards Association of Australia (supra). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1470" id="cs1">65 The appellant referred to two decisions ( Byrne v Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd (2008) 169 IR 236 ; [2008] FCA 66 and Jordan v Mornington Inn Pty Ltd (2007) 166 IR 33 ; [2007] FCA 1384) to support his reliance on Belandra (2003) 126 IR 165 ; [2003] FCA 910 as a decision contrary to the trial judge's approach to construction. Both concerned penalties for contravention of Pt 16 (and its predecessor) and neither expressly dealt with any requirement over and above the terms of the prohibited reasons.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 340" id="cs2">They are Byrne v Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd [8] and Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [9] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 440D Stay of proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">PENALTY INTEREST RATES ACT 1983 </title>
<title id="l6">Penalty Interest Rates Act 1983 - SECT 2 Penalty interest rate</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">impermissible merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">no bias or apprehended bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">findings not "obviously illogical"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">no "inconsistent" finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">no failure pursuant to s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">s.424aa does not arise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">no failure pursuant to s.91r(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">no failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1171">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">effect of s 91r(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">s 91r(3) of the act can only sensibly be applied once preliminary findings of fact have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">as the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") was not satisfied the applicant's conduct in australia satisfied s 91r(3)(b) of the act , s 91r(3) required the tribunal to disregard the applicant's conduct in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">the tribunal breached s 91r(3) of the act and therefore committed a jurisdictional error  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 105">"disregard any conduct engaged in by the person in australia"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</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 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l5">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">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">decision of administrative character made under enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct engaged in for purpose of making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">review of decisions and conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 3 , 5 , 6 .  broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">commercial broadcasting licences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">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="cp2.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">controller of licensee not fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">whether licensee fit and proper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">conduct before commencement of licence period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 33">broadcasting act 1942 (cth), s. 88.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 10 Rights conferred by this Act to be additional to other rights</title>
<title id="l2">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l3">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 55ZA Delegation</title>
<title id="l5">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l6">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 36 Assessment of capability of undertaking rehabilitation program</title>
<title id="l7">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 38 Review of certain determinations by Comcare</title>
<title id="l8">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 41A Delegation by rehabilitation authority</title>
<title id="l9">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 57 Power to require medical examination</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY AMENDMENT ACT 1999 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>