Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether refugee review tribunal failed to comply with s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of provision of information to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal asked wrong question or applied wrong test in considering claim of fear of persecution on religious grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether tribunal denied appellant procedural fairness having regard to the manner of examination of independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">lapse of time between entry into australia and bringing of application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">consideration of s 91r(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">where appellant converted to christianity while in australia practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">leave to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether respondents prejudiced by granting of leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether exceptional circumstances required to be shown by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">whether allowance to be granted by the court to permit recently published judgments to be understood and applied by legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 195">grounds not raised before federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">information provided by the appellant in his application for a protection visa was a part of the refugee review tribunal's reasons for affirming the minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">appellant requested in his application to the tribunal that it refer to that information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">information fell within s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1538">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">rejection of application for review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">indian christian evangelist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">claim for refugee status based on fear of lack of effective protection against hindu extremists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">argued before fmc (i) no evidence to support finding of fact as to action by indian police in response to attacks against members of religious minorities (ii) tribunal did not ask "what if i am wrong?"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 851">leave sought to raise further arguments (iii) failure to comply with s 424a migration act 1958 (cth) in respect of information concerning appellant's failings to return to site of home allegedly burned down by extremists and (iv) failure to deal with essential integers of appellant's claim held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">alleged breach of s 424a of the migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">whether information was within exemption of s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">the relevant information was given to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 627">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 609">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 609">appeal from federal magistrates court's dismissal of application for review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 609">bangladeshi national claiming fear of persecution on grounds of political opinion as member of awami league</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 609">alleged tribunal failed to consider certain matters and made irrational and illogical assumptions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 609">alleged tribunal failed to comply with s 424a of migration act 1958 (cth) by relying on vagueness in protection visa application concerning appellant's claimed involvement in awami league</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 451">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 451">well-founded fear of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 451">application of s 424a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where applicant made references in application for review by refugee review tribunal to material provided to department in visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">meaning of 'information' under s 424a(1) and s 424a(3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">incorporation by reference in application for review and whether considered 'information' applicant gave for purposes of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">held objective test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">where tribunal made positive finding of elaboration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">treatment of omissions in evidence by review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">whether considered information relevant to s 424a(1)(b) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 435">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">circumstances in which a later full court can depart from an earlier full court decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">determining ratio decidendi</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">application of minister for immigration and multicultural affairs v al shamry (2001) 110 fcr 27  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">the application of s 424a(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 2">meaning of 'application', 'information', and 'reason, or part of the reason' in s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">appeal from federal magistrates court order dismissing application for constitutional writs to quash decision of refuge review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether inquisitorial function of tribunal duly performed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 16">whether "jurisdictional error" in tribunal's decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">adverse credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1271">no error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">refugee review tribunal ("the rrt") failed to give appellant particulars in writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether information provided by applicant on protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether converted to information given by applicant for purpose of application for review by rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether exception in s424a(3)(b) of migration act 1958 (cth) enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">whether breach of s424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates decision of rrt practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">joinder of rrt migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 744">s424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">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="cp12.4">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="cp12.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether information given to tribunal for the purpose of the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">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="cp12.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether tribunal gave particulars of information, explained its relevance, and invited comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether failure to do these things jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 131">whether discretion should be exercised to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte cassim  immigration law and administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">refugee review tribunal decision refusing to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">application in original jurisdiction of high court for constitutional writs and injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by reason of statutory provision restricting representation and cross-examination at the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to investigate the applicant's claims and documents adduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by taking into account an irrelevant consideration in refusing to investigate the applicant's claims and documents adduced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by making findings of facts so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal could have come to them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to warn that a document referred to in a decision relied upon by the applicant would be relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 50">whether denial of natural justice by failing to provide a fair and just mechanism for review and by failing to act according to the substantial justice of the case.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">application for permanent entry permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">application based on "strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">applicant with criminal record of sexual offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">operation on applicant for removal of both testicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">subsequent reports of changed sexual behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">all close relations of applicant resident in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">claim of "strong compassionate or humanitarian grounds" found by delegate to be established but application rejected because of "real risk" of recidivism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether applicant was accorded procedural fairness in connection with consideration of risk of recidivism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether there was evidence to support a finding of "real risk" of recidivism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether decision was unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[1989] FCA 518">whether it was unreasonable for decision to be taken without obtaining further information known to be available.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">application for permanent residence in australia by spouse of person having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">validity of decision to refuse application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">failure of minister to take into account relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">unreasonableness of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">ambit of material relevant for consideration in determining reasonableness.  migration act 1958 ss. 6 , 6a  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 s.5  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">review of minister's decision refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to australia, spouse having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether minister had failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether exercise of power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">taking of further evidence to adduce facts not before the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.14">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss 5(1)(e) , 5 (2), 5 (2)(a), 5 (2)(b), 5 (2)(f), 5 (2)(g), 6 (2), 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.15">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 6 , 6a. in an application for review of a decision of the minister for immigration and ethnic affairs made in 1984 refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to an applicant who was the spouse of a permanent resident on the basis that the applicant's marriage had been assessed as being one where the parties did not genuinely intend to continue living as a married couple in australia, it being the minister's policy to refuse permanent entry permits in such cases.  held: (1) that relevant considerations which should have been taken into account were not, thus making the minister's decision invalid pursuant to s 5(2)(b) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (the act), such considerations being:  (i) a report made in 1981 by an interviewing officer in suva expressing an opinion that the marriage relationship was genuine, such report being part of the history of the relationship, all of which was relevant in determining the quality of the marriage as at the date of the minister deciding the application. although the report was not presented to the minister, it was on the departmental file and was accordingly to be regarded as being constructively before him.  peko-wallsend ltd v. minister for aboriginal affairs (1985) 59 alr 51 , referred to.  (ii) statutory declarations of neighbours and acquaintances as to the applicant leading a normal married life and a letter of a social worker as to the applicant's wife living at home with the applicant, such documents being available to the minister, but there being nothing to indicate that he had taken any account of them.  (2) that in determining whether an administrative decision made under statutory authority falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.16">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">(a) the court should construe that paragraph in the light of the common law principle of which that paragraph is a legislative enactment, that principle being stated by lord diplock in bromley london borough city council v. greater london council (1983) 1 ac 768 to be the invalidation of administrative decisions "that looked at objectively are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached them" and by menzies j in parramatta city council v. pestell [1972] hca 59 ; (1972) 128 clr 305 to be the invalidation of an administrative decision "based on an opinion which could not be justified on any reasonable grounds".  perkins v. cuthill [1981] fca 44 ; (1981) 34 alr 669 ; plegas v. mccabe (unreported, federal court of australia, lockhart j, 3 august 1984; willara pty ltd v. mcveigh (1984) 54 alr 65 ; re w (an infant) (1971) ac 682 ; associated provincial picture houses v. wednesbury corporation [1947] ewca civ 1 ; (1948) 1 kb 223 ; secretary of state for education and science v. tameside metropolitan borough council [1976] ukhl 6 ; (1977) ac 1014 ; borkovic v. minister for immigration and ethnic affairs (1981) 39 alr 186 ; hamblin v. duffy [1981] fca 38 ; (1981) 50 flr 308 ; mixnam's properties ltd v. chertsey urban district council (1964) 1 qb 214 , referred to.  (b) the court is entitled to consider those facts which were known to the decision-maker actually or constructively together only with such additional facts as the decision-maker would have learned but for any unreasonable conduct by him where such facts are obtainable from material that is readily available.  (3) that, having taken further evidence relating to the matters arising out of the interviews by the departmental officer, and having reviewed and analysed the evidence and the manner in which the decision was reached by the minister, and bearing in mind the strength of the case required before it may be said that a decision falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act, the minister's decision was "devoid of any plausible justification" and that it accordingly be set aside pursuant to that paragraph of the act and the matter remitted to the minister for further consideration. in reaching this decision the court took into account, inter alia, the following matters:  (i) the existence of the statutory declarations and the social worker's letter asserting that there was a normal marriage relationship, the declarants and writer thereof being apparently credible and independent and such documents asserting a conclusion contrary to that formed by the minister and the fact that the minister had not further investigated the statements contained in those documents as he ought to have done.  (ii) that the only matters tending to show lack of intention to live together were the circumstances of the marriage four years earlier and more importantly, interviews by a departmental officer of the applicant and his wife, such interviews containing inconsistencies in their recollection of details in their daily lives, the minister believing that such inconsistencies indicated that the wife did not live with her husband. the interviewing officer should have given the applicant an opportunity to deal with those matters which excited an adverse reaction in the officer before permitting those matters to be used in a manner adverse to the applicant in the decision-making process.  (iii) the interviews which were relied upon by the minister as the primary method of determining the genuineness of the relationship were rushed and short and in any case, neither a verbatim record nor at least contemporaneous notes of the interviews were made and kept, as ought to have been done.  hearing  sydney, 1985, february 5-6, 26.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">remaining relative visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">applicant with cerebral palsy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether tribunal properly reconstituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">consideration of principal member's power to delegate reconstitution power to senior member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">presumption of regularity of appointment of public officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">de-facto officer doctrine.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">remaining relative visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">applicant with cerebral palsy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether medical assessment of medical officer of the commonwealth valid and binding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.12">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether medical practitioner was an appointed medical officer of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.13">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether request for opinion of a medical officer of the commonwealth properly made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.14">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether medical report made in response to proper request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.15">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether criterion in item 4005 met</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.16">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether request for medical opinion met the required definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.17">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">consideration relevant to whether item 4005 met</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.18">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether tribunal required to make enquiries relevant to assessment under item 4005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.19">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether proper construction of item 4005 requires assessment of specific nature and extent of applicant's actual condition.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.20">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.21">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">remaining relative visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.22">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether tribunal gave adequate reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.23">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether tribunal's reasons adequate basis for conclusions reached</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.24">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether tribunal's reasons fail to discuss fundamental issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.25">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether tribunal failed to set out findings on material questions of fact, or evidence or material in support.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.26">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.27">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">remaining relative visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.28">citing from="[2010] FMCA 6">whether applicant given particulars of information which would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming decision under review.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">review of rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">allegations of domestic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">where tribunal found persecution was not for a convention reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">whether applicant a member of a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">whether information relied on by tribunal fell within s.424a(3)(b) migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1787">whether information was "given" to tribunal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether tribunal failed to comply with statutory obligation to give appellant information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether information was within exception to obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1031">whether appellant had given information to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 663">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 663">appeal from federal magistrate affirming decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 663">claim not raised in initial application subsequently raised before tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 663">where tribunal failed to alert appellant with sufficient specificity to the adverse material on which it relied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 663">where tribunal failed to meet its obligations to appellant under s 424a(1) of migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 663">demonstrated compliance with s 424a(3)(b) relieves the respondent of the requirements set out under s 424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 663">no appellable error made out</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 6" id="cs0">That section provides a form of codified natural justice, a " statutory enactment of the basic rules of natural justice ", with which it is obligatory for the Tribunal to comply. [195] It requires that the Tribunal give, in writing, particulars of any information which would be the reason, or part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review, to the applicant; [196] in SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [197] the High Court held that a failure by the Refugee Review Tribunal to comply with s.424A of the Migration Act amounted to jurisdictional error. [198] In SAAP McHugh J said: "There can be no "partial compliance" with a statutory obligation to accord procedural fairness. Either there has been compliance or there has not. Given the significance of the obligation in the context of the review process (the obligation is mandated in every case), it is difficult to accept the proposition that a decision made despite the lack of strict compliance is a valid decision under the Act.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1787" id="cs1">The applicant finds supports for her position in a decision of Kenny J in MZXFQ v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 826.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1031" id="cs2">26 On the issue of republication and adoption, there is a 'blizzard of cases': VWBF [2006] FCA 851 ; 154 FCR 302 at [23] per Heerey J. It is necessary, in the light of the facts in this appeal, to distinguish and put to one side generally those cases raising the issue of whether information has been given for the purpose of the application to the Tribunal where the information has been elicited as the consequence of a question from the Tribunal to an applicant. Of more relevance here on their facts are those cases where the applicant has expressly advanced information that had been initially given to the Department as part of the case on review to the Tribunal. In drawing this distinction in MZXFQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 826 Kenny J cited as illustrative of this latter category M55 [2005] FCA 131 at [25] per Gray J; VUAV v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1271 at [11] per Merkel J; SZGGT [2006] FCA 435 at [24] and [50] per Rares J; SZCKD v Minster for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 451 at [37] per Graham J; VWBF [2006] FCA 851 ; 154 FCR 302 at 312 per Heerey J; and SZCBQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1538 at [12] per Bennett J. As her Honour stated, in these cases s 424A(3)(b) was held to apply. Examination of the manner of giving in each of them may be instructive in relation to the effect of the words used by the appellant.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 663" id="cs3">26 After the foregoing reasons had been prepared counsel for the appellant sought and obtained leave to file further written submissions because of the publication of reasons in two other cases. The reasons had been published after I had reserved judgment in the present proceeding. The two cases were the decision of Rares J in SZEOP v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 807 and that of Kenny J in MZXFQ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 826. Written submissions in reply were also filed by counsel for the Minister pursuant to leave.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">constitutional writ relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">cancellation of non-citizen permanent visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">decision made by minister personally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">appellant's failure to pass character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">criminal record. migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether general deterrence is an irrelevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether general deterrence is a factor relevant to the exercise of the minister's discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether cancellation of visa where general deterrence is the sole or substantial reason for cancellation of visa is punitive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether appellant's intellectual disability was taken into account.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">notice of objection to the competency of the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">whether trial judge dealt with matter on a final basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">no leave to appeal necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 172">application for leave to file amended notice of appeal to include grounds not raised before trial judge.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">minister cancels visa under s 501(2) of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">scope of minister's discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether the provision should be read down to exclude considerations that are 'punitive' in character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether any potential conflict with chapter iii of the constitution by purporting to rest judicial power in the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether decisions giving weight to the need to protect the community are punitive in character  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">minister cancels visa under s 501(2) of the migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">best interests of the children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 151">whether minister under obligation to make further inquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">means of notification of decision of delegate of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">consideration of ss 494b, 494c and 494d of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">purported notification sent by registered mail to appellant at care of address of authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">whether registered mail addressed in that way was given to authorised recipient migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">notification of decision of delegate of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">consideration of ss 66(2)(d) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">whether notification fulfilled requirements of s 66(2)(d)(ii) where certain information required to be contained in notification argued to be incomplete or inaccurate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">contention first raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">issue not determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">applicant in detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">early final hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">unrepresented party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">identification of issues to be resolved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">duty of decision-maker to assist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">no failure to consider relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">reasonable opportunity to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">review of reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">findings of fact made and evidence referred to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1609">no need for all findings on all facts</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1609" id="cs0">27 The fact that the Tribunal did not use the language of " hardship " that would be suffered by the Applicant -- as opposed to the " hardship " that would be occasioned to others -- it is considered, is not decisive. That which is decisive against the Applicant is the fact that the Tribunal considered the entirety of the evidence, including the evidence as to the effect that the decision would have upon him. Subject to a proper application of Direction No 21 , the weight to be given to the considerations addressed is a matter for the Tribunal alone: cf Black v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 189 at [33] ---[37] [2007] FCAFC 189 ; , 99 ALD 1 at 8---9; Tapel v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 857 at [27] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494B Methods by which Minister gives documents to a person</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501G Refusal or cancellation of visa--notification of decision</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 2.55 Giving of documents relating to proposed cancellation, cancellation or revocation of cancellation</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 560">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 560">application for order pursuant to s 23 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) (federal court act) that the respondent provide a statement of reasons for decision pursuant to s 13(1) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) (adjr act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 560">respondent seeks summary dismissal pursuant to s 31a of the federal court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 560">whether alleged decision was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 560">whether s 23 of the federal court act is a source of jurisdiction pursuant to which the order sought by the applicant can be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 560">whether the applicant is a person aggrieved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 560">whether s 17 of the adjr act meant that notice given by previous officer holder not valid for the purposes of s 13(3) of the adjr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">priestley v godwin  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">proceedings collateral to application under s 13(1) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">application by respondent for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">application for judge's recusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">allegations of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">validity of s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 59">validity of o 20 r 5 of the federal court rules .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">consent orders including undertakings about future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">undertaking extending beyond court's power to restrain conduct by injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 45a, 80 , 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 22 , 23 .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 594" id="cs0">By applications filed on 3 January 2008, Mr Priestley sought orders pursuant to s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ('the Federal Court Act') that the respondent(s) in each matter prepare and furnish a statement of reasons pursuant to s 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) for decisions that he characterised and which he said were made. In each case, the respondent(s) sought orders under s 31A of the Federal Court Act for summary dismissal. I concluded in each case that there was no decision as alleged by Mr Priestley. I dismissed each proceeding pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court Act ( Priestley v Godwin (No 4) [2009] FCA 560 ; Priestley v Hawker [2009] FCA 561). The applications for leave to appeal
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l5">PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l6">PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE ACT 1999 - SECT 40 Commissioner's functions</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">i  l securities pty ltd v htw valuers (brisbane) pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">loan transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">mortgage over land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading and deceptive valuation of land by valuer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">failure by lender to make reasonable inquiries as to borrower's capacity to meet interest payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">default on loan by borrower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">proceeds of sale by mortgagee insufficient to meet borrower's obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">liability of valuer for loss and damage suffered by lender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">causal connection between contravention of trade practices act 1974 (cth) and loss and damage suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">whether damages awarded under s 82 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) to be reduced for lender's failure to take reasonable care to protect its own interests.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 68">roxborough v rothmans of pall mall australia limited high court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">total failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">pleasure cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">sinking of during cruise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">injury to passenger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">fare paid in advance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">right to recover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1993] HCA 4">damages for disappointment and distress.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">action for damages to be commenced within three years after cause of action accrued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">conduct inducing giving of indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">accrual of cause of action to indemnifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82.  federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">barred cause of action introduced by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">whether permitted by rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court of australia act 1976(cth), s. 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court rules 1979(cth), o. 13, r. 2(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">injury reasonably foreseeable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">successive negligent acts by different persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">whether first negligent actor exonerated by intervening negligent act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">apportionment of liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1991] HCA 12">wrongs act 1936 (s.a.), s. 27a(3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">false statement by employer to employee as to condition of work site in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">resultant injuries to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">whether conduct "in" trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 17">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">whether applicant has established substantial reputation in respect of words "equity access"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">whether words merely descriptive of financial product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">distinction between descriptive and fancy names discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">respondents' products distinguished from that of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">whether any real likelihood of misleading or deception as to business association.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">interest pursuant to s. 51a of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">section 52 of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">misleading and deceptive conduct in connection with sale of restaurant business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">circumstances in which silence may constitute misleading conduct under s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">whether applicant had constructive notice of matters which solicitors acting for the applicant would have discovered if proper enquiries had been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">construction of special conditions in contract for sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">operation of exclusion clauses as a defence to an action under s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">circumstances in which order for restitution is appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">exercise of court's discretion under s. 87 of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">adequacy of damages as remedy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">quantum meruit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">restitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">unjust enrichment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">building contract not enforceable unless in writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">claim for reasonable remuneration for work done under oral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">basis of entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 5">builders licensing act 1971 (n.s.w.), s. 45.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">constructive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">stockbroker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">moneys received from client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">fiduciary relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">stock exchange fidelity fund</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">compensation for pecuniary loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">loan at interest to stockbroker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">whether trustee of money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">securities industry act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 58</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">securities industry act 1975 (n.s.w.), s. 97(1)(b).  companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">stockbroker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">stock exchange fidelity fund</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">compensation for pecuniary loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">defalcation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">securities industry act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 58</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 25">securities industry act 1975 (n.s.w.), s. 97(1)(b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">liability of firm for wrongful act of partner committed ordinary course of firm's business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">fraudulent deposit by partner of th party cheques in firm's account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">bank liable to third party for convers of cheques</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">whether firm liable to bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">whether deposit of cheques within ordinary course of firm's business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">whether proceeds of cheques became bank's money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">money had and received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">partnership act 1892 (n.s.w.), s. 10.  banker and customer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">fraudulent deposit by partner of third party che firm's account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">bank liable to third party for conversion of cheques</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">whether firm liable to bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">money had and received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 21">whether proceeds of cheques became bank's money.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">resulting trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">unconscionable retention of benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">failure of joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">purchase of land by unmarried persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">joint and several liability under contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">price paid by woman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">undertaking by man to pay for certain repairs and cost of prefabricated house</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">separation without fulfilment of undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">whether resulting trust in favour of woman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">whether rebutted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">failure of joint venture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">effect of discharge of joint debt by woman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">gift on condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">failure to fulfil condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[1985] HCA 78">whether forfeiture or right to compensation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">false or misleading statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">lease of shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">subsisting claim by lessor in supreme court  secns 52(1), 53a(1)(b), 82 trade practices act 1974 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">lease of shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">statements by agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">false or misleading statement concerning lease of shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">supreme court action by lessor for possession, rent and charges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 , 53a, 82 . the applicants sought damages under s. 82 of the trade practices act 1974 from the respondents in respect of alleged breaches of ss. 52 and 53a thereof. in august 1979 the applicants entered into a lease for a three-year term of a shop in a shopping centre from the first respondent. the applicants alleged certain oral statements by a servant of the second respondent, agents for the owners of the centre, made in the course of explaining to them characteristics of the shop and the terms of the proposed lease. by a writ issued out of the supreme court of victoria in may 1980 the first respondent had claimed possession and arrears of rent and other charges. the applicants had surrendered the lease. the respondents filed a joint defence and appeared by the same counsel.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">name similar to that of company with established business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 (3), 52 *, 80 **, 82 .  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">principles to be applied.   * trade practices act 1974 (cth), s, 52 is set out at p. 22, post.  ** the relevant provisions of s. 80 are set out at pp. 221-222, post.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">associations and clubs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">rights, liabilities and duties of members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">unincorporated association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">tort liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">vicarious liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">where fluctuating membership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">where intentional tort committed by a member since deceased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether current and/or past members liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether trustees of association liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether archbishop liable associations and clubs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">procedure in actions by and against</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">who may be suedchurches and religious associations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">general matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">churches</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">relationship of church and communicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">relationship between members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">relationship of trustees to church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">relationship of archbishop to churchcorporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">types of corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">corporation sole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether roman catholic archbishop of sydney is a corporation sole for purposes of tort liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">where predecessor may have committed a tortestoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">estoppel by deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">in general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether draft settlement deed contained representation as to proper defendants in matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether defendants estopped from denying that they are not the proper defendantsprocedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">supreme court procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">procedure under rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.34">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">representative orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.35">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">"same interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.36">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">"same liability"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.37">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">what constitutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.38">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether requirement that defences need to be the same</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.39">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">order sought against unincorporated association with fluctuating membership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.40">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.41">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">uniform civil procedure rules 2005 , r 7.4procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.42">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">supreme court procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.43">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.44">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">procedure under rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.45">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.46">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">representative orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.47">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">unincorporated association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.48">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether a judgment is against the members individually or funds of an association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.49">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">uniform civil procedure rules 2005 , r 7.5statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.50">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.51">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">statutory powers and duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.52">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.53">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.54">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">particular cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.55">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.56">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">purpose or object underlying act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.57">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">whether trustees of church for the purposes of property matters can be subject to all legal claims involving the church</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.58">cited from="[2007] NSWCA 117">interpretation act 1987 , s 33</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">campbells cash and carry pty limited v fostif pty limited  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">supreme court rules 1970 (nsw), pt 8 r 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">representative proceedings brought in each case by a licensed tobacco retailer to recover from its wholesaler licence fees paid from the beginning of the financial year commencing 1 july 1997 until the decision in ha v state of new south wales which declared the licensing scheme invalid and which licence fees were not paid to the taxing authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">proceedings financed by litigation funder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">proceedings intended to be conducted by litigation funder on behalf of those retailers who "opted-in".  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">supreme court rules 1970 (nsw), pt 8 r 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">whether provisions for representative proceedings in the supreme court rules were validly engaged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">"same interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">common interest of fact or law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">whether there were, at the time the proceedings were commenced, numerous persons who had the same interest in the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">proceedings intended to be conducted on behalf of those retailers who subsequently "opted-in"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">none had "opted-in" when proceedings commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">relationship between "same interest" and relief sought.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">public policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">proceedings financed by litigation funder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">litigation funder sought out possible claimants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">retailer gave up to funder one-third of its claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">whether the representative proceedings should be stayed as contrary to public policy or an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">maintenance, champerty and barratry abolition act 1993 (nsw).  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">right to administer interrogatories in representative proceedings to identify others with the "same interest" in the proceedings.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.28">cited from="[2006] HCA 41">consistency of common law doctrine of abuse of process with judicial process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">supreme court procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">practice under rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">representative parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">where applicant owner seeks orders against the respondent requiring the vacation of land and removal of all goods and improvements from the land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">where the occupiers of the land are protestors and trespassers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">where the application was brought against respondent personally and in a representative capacity -whether it was appropriate to have a representative defendant in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] QSC 23">whether the respondent was the appropriate representative defendant having regard to the criteria in the ucpr</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">representative proceedings under pt iva federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether s 33c satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether substantial common issues of law or fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">importance of compliance with s 33h in specifying common questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">operation of s 33c to claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether common questions determined by reference to findings which might be made at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether merger of questions under s 33c and s 33n</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">operation of s 33n in relation to disposition of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether in interests of justice to order discontinuance under s 33n</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether inappropriate for claims to be pursued in representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether issues will be controversial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether extent of findings possible relevant to order under s 33n</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether relevant to consider evidence in other claims rendered unnecessary by findings in representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">what findings on causation possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether application premature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">relevance of procedure in determining common questions prior to discontinuing as representative proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">effect of determination of risk of injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">effect of determination whether conduct misleading and deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether costs of representative proceeding greater</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether substantial number of non-common issues sufficient for order of discontinuance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">relevance of case management to assessment of representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">objects of representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">observations on excessive interlocutory proceedings in group proceedings  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">whether costs of representative proceedings greater than costs of separate proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">evidence necessary to establish</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2002] FCAFC 243">relevance to order of discontinuance of representative proceeding under s 33n federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">the applicant commenced proceedings in the high court on his own behalf and as the representative of named persons who were said to have the "same interest" as himself (relying on o 16 r 12 of the high court rules), seeking orders nisi directed to the respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">the represented persons, each of whom had applied to the minister for a protection visa and had that application refused by a delegate of the minister, fell into one of two categories: (i) those who could no longer apply to the refugee review tribunal (rrt) for review of that decision because the period specified in s 412(1)(b) of the migration act 1958 (cth) had elapsed; (ii) those who had unsuccessfully applied to the rrt for review and who could no longer apply to the federal court for judicial review of the decision of the rrt under pt 8 of the migration act because the period specified in s 478(1)(b) of that act had elapsed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">pursuant to s 44 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth), the high court remitted to the federal court the controversy between the applicant and the respondents and the controversies between each of the represented persons and the respondents (or some of them)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">in addition to the prerogative relief, the applicant sought an order that he be at liberty to represent additional persons having the "same interest" by amending the list of represented persons from time to time (under o 6 r 13(1) of the federal court rules ), or an order that additional applicants be at liberty to be joined as applicants (under o 6 r 2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">whether the federal court had jurisdiction, given that the authorities establish that s 44(1) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) simply permits remitter to a court which already had jurisdiction with respect to the subject-matter and the parties, and does not provide it with jurisdiction which it would not otherwise have had</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">whether the court had jurisdiction under the migration act 1958 (cth) to make orders in respect of the represented persons in category (i)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">whether, even if it had jurisdiction under the migration act 1958 (cth) to make orders in respect of the presently identified represented persons in category (ii), it would, without further remitter, have jurisdiction to make orders in respect of additional persons who it was proposed to add to the list of represented persons or to join as applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">whether the court had jurisdiction under s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) in respect of the determination of the constitutional validity of provisions of the migration act 1958 (cth)    practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">whether, assuming that the court had jurisdiction and that the representative proceedings could have been properly commenced under o 6 r 13 of the federal court rules , that rule permits the making of an order which would expand the class of persons as representing whom the applicant has commenced the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">if so, whether it would be appropriate to make an order which simply added specified persons or an order which would permit the class to be added to automatically from time to time simply by the filing of an augmented list and an affidavit identifying the additional persons as having the "same interest" as the applicant and represented persons   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">whether, assuming that the court had jurisdiction, additional persons could be joined as applicants under o 6 r 2(a) of the federal court rules without leave of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2000] FCA 458">if not, whether the court ought, in its discretion, to grant leave under o 6 r 2(b) for additional persons to be automatically joined as applicants simply upon the filing of a list of their names and an affidavit identifying them as having the "same interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 48">wong v silkfield pty ltd  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 48">representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 48">commencement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 48">misleading and deceptive conduct pleaded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 48">whether alleged common misrepresentation a "substantial common issue of law or fact".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1163">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1163">respondent representative proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1163">order 6 r 13 federal court rules (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1163">whether respondent representative proceedings are appropriate in the circumstances.  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1163">whether the respondents and the persons, if any, they represent are employees of afg pty limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) ('afgpl'), allco finance group limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) ('afgl') or allco finance (australia) limited (receivers and managers appointed) (in liquidation) ('afal') for the purposes of s 556(1)(e) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) ('the act')</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1163">whether the respondents and the persons, if any, they represent, are priority creditors of afgpl, afgl or afal pursuant to s 433(3)(c) of the act.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1163" id="cs0">The applicants in their written submissions made much of the distinction between the nature of applicant (or plaintiff) representative actions and respondent (or defendant) representative actions. This Court has recognised the significant distinction between the two: BT Australasia ; Stacey Brothers Plumbing Pty Ltd v Waterco Ltd [2009] FCA 438 (' Stacey Brothers '). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 13 Exclusive rights given by patent</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 117 Infringement by supply of products</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 469">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 469">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 469">pakistani claiming persecution as shia muslim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 469">disbelieved by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 469">no jurisdictional error established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 469">application dismissed.</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">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 484">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 484">special need relative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 484">"willing and able" to provide assistance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 484">"substantial assistance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 484">whether the tribunal had directed its mind to "prolonged illness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 484">ability of the nominator to work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 484">description of consulting psychiatrist as "medical practitioner"</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 484" id="cs0">8 The relevant provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)('the Act'), including part 806 and the definition of 'special need relative' in reg 1.03, were repealed by statutory r 259 of 1999 reg 4 in Sch 2. However, the original visa application in the case before me pre-dates the repeal, and the legislation in force as at the date of the application continues to apply. This includes the definition of 'special need relative' as it stood before the repeal: McHugh J in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Cohen (2001) 177 ALR 473 , cf for example Wahab v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 421. At the time of the application, the definition of 'special need relative' in reg 1.03 Migration Regulations read:

 '"special need relative", in relation to an Australian citizen usually resident in Australia, an Australian permanent resident usually resident in Australia or an eligible New Zealand citizen, means a relative who is willing and able to provide substantial and continuing assistance to the citizen or resident if:

 (a) the citizen or resident has a permanent or long-term need for assistance because of death, disability, prolonged illness or other serious circumstances affecting the citizen or resident personally, or a member of his or her family unit; and

 (b) the assistance cannot be reasonably obtained from

 (i) any other relative of the citizen or resident, being a relative who is an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand resident; or

 (ii) welfare, hospital, nursing or community services in Australia. ' </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 1.03 Definitions</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>