Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">abolition of privilege against self-incrimination and grant of use immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">whether impermissibly interferes with state courts. statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">amending or abrogating the common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">one australian common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">limited legislative competence of commonwealth and state parliaments to abrogate the common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">effect of abrogation by the commonwealth parliament  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">statutory duty to record reasons for a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">person summoned to appear at examination under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">whether statute impliedly confers a right on a witness to be given the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">purpose of the statutory provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1219">no right to reasons under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">public examination of director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">abrogation by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">power to give directions as to matters to be inquired into</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">whether court may excuse from duty to answer questions on ground that answer may incriminate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">inherent power of court to control proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">ability to reject question on ground that answer may incriminate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">companies (new south wales) code, s. 541.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">royal commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">inquiry and report into malpractices in handling of meat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">person charged after establishment of commission with offences relating to export of meat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">person charged giving evidence before commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">questions about matters relevant to charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">interference with course of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">royal commissions act 1902 (cth), ss. 6 , 6dd , 7</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">evidence act 1958 (vict.), ss. 16 (b), 29, 30.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">whether abrogated by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">royal commissions act 1902 (cth), s. 6dd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 42">evidence act 1958 (vict.), ss. 16, 19, 29, 30.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">royal commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">inquiry and report on commission of criminal offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">tendency of public proceedings of duly constituted royal commission to interfere with administration of justice.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">powers of federal parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">power to restrain proceedings of state royal commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">power to punish for contempt of federal court proceedings constituted by proceedings of state royal commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">the constitution (63  64 vict. c.12) ss.51(xxxv) , 76 , 77 , 109</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 23 , 31 .  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">appeal from federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">objection to competency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">appeal not to lie from federal court in matter arising under pt viii of conciliation and arbitration act or for contempt of federal court in relation to proceedings under that act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">injunction to restrain apprehended contempt of federal court proceedings for deregistration of organization under pt viii</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">alleged contempt in unrelated proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">whether judgment in respect of contempt of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">federal court finding of contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">whether conclusive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 23 , 31 , 33</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[1982] HCA 31">conciliation and arbitration act 1904 (cth), ss. 118a, 118b, 143.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">publication by newspaper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">allegations of police violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">charges pending in court of petty sessions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">tendency to prejudice proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">summary jurisdiction of supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">similar allegations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1955] HCA 12">judicial inquiry already ordered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">where witness summoned under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">right to a fair trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">where questions asked by examiner relate directly to matters the subject of a criminal charge laid against the witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">whether real risk that questioning may interfere with administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">protection prohibition in s 25a(9) of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) (the commission act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 61">whether the commission act achieves balance between public interest in the investigation of federally related criminal activity and public interest in the right of an accused person to a fair trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1038">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1038">summons issued under australian crime commission act 2002 (cth) (the acc act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1038">applicant attended for examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1038">examiner asked questions directly relevant to charges laid against applicant in state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1038">whether examiner can require applicant to answer questions that directly relate to subject matter of charges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1038">whether would involve a real risk of interference with the administration of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1038">whether the acc act, by necessary implication, has provided that there should be no constraint on the examiner's questions</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 61" id="cs0">52 I do wish to say something of the judgment of Jessup J in ABC v Sage [2009] FCA 170 ; (2009) 107 ALD 614 ( Sage ). The reason for this is that the Examiner in the present case regarded Sage as authority authorising the questioning and compelling of answers to questions, even though these questions directly concerned the charge the person summoned was facing. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1038" id="cs1">ABC v Sage [2009] FCA 170 ( Sage ) concerned an attack, inter alia, on the legality of an examination summons under s 28 of the ACC Act. The summons contained a note that the applicant "will not be examined in relation to charges currently before the courts". At one point in the examination, that applicant objected to answering a question because it would reveal an element of his intended defence to the serious criminal charges laid against him. The examiner ruled that he must answer the question. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 Applications for review of conduct related to making of decisions</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 46 Penalty for sitting when disqualified</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 92 Trade within the Commonwealth to be free</title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109 Inconsistency of laws</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l5">MARKETING OF POTATOES ACT 1946 </title>
<title id="l6">MARKETING OF POTATOES ACT 1946 - SECT 22 </title>
<title id="l7">MARKETING OF POTATOES ACT 1946 - SECT 23 </title>
<title id="l8">MARKETING OF POTATOES ACT 1946 - SECT 24 </title>
<title id="l9">MARKETING OF POTATOES REGULATIONS 1987 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1738">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1738">patent infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1738">account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1738">profits made on one of two infringing products but losses on the other over several years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1738">whether losses from one product to be deducted from profits from the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1738">whether losses in later years to be deducted from profits in earlier years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1737">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1737">gross sum costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1737">urgency of attaining costs figure in light of time limits for application to have fixed and floating charges declared void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">standard and innovation patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">power saw able to be used as either panel saw or jigsaw  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">whether invention novel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">whether invention useful patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">standing of licensee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">whether exclusive licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">whether retrospective operation of licence agreement designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">whether divisional application valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">whether new and original</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 504">infringement by fraudulent or obvious imitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2059">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2059">respondent entitled to costs on a party and party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2059">application for a gross sum costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2059">assessment of a gross sum pursuant to federal court rules , o 62 r 4(2)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2059">relationship between assessment of a gross sum and principles of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 844">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 844">applicant recovered less than $100,000</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 844">application to recover costs in full</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 844">applicable principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">whether costs should follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">reserved costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">questionable success of motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">where applicants did not pursue application for interlocutory relief in favour of early trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">where affidavits contained unnecessary detail and inaccuracies and were given low weight</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">costs of senior and junior counsel contested</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 34">order 62 rule 36a(1), federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">conversion damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">whether lump sum costs orders should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1371">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1371">"one-third off" rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1371">where the court has found breach of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1371">whether proceedings could more suitably have been brought in another court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1371">where a small amount of damages is claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1371">where an injunction is also sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1998] VSC 69">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1998] VSC 69">application for leave to appeal from order made by county court master</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1998] VSC 69">relevant principles pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1998] VSC 69">application to strike out parts of defence and counterclaim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1998] VSC 69">rule 23.02 contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1998] VSC 69">pleading by defence and counterclaim that plaintiff vendor had infringed third party patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1998] VSC 69">whether defendant could rely upon that matter, if established, as repudiation of contract by vendor and/or as a basis for rescission, and as foundation of counterclaim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">review of decision of taxing officer pursuant to federal court rules o62 r44(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">rules providing for payment into court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">consent orders for payment out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">whether constitute an "awarded judgment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">copyright action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">whether proceedings could have been more suitably brought in another jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">"one-third off" rule : o62 r36a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1353">costs of counsel attending mediation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">civil procedure act 2005 , s 98(4)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">specified gross sum costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">where defendants successful and uncontroversially entitled to orders for costs of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">where plaintiffs are impecunious and unlikely to satisfy any costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">where costs of assessment, estimated to be in the order of $350,000 also unlikely to be recouped</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">whether defendants entitled to a specified gross sum costs order where plaintiffs contest it and where judicial determination of quantum of costs unlikely to approach the level of detailed inquiry of a costs assessment by a costs assessor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">where determination must be judicial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">whether court in a position to make anything more than a "next best guess"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">whether opportunity to make a just determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">where evidence in support of the application overwhelming and uncontested</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 756">plaintiffs ordered to pay specified gross sum instead of assessed costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 756" id="cs0">

4 See also the comments of Sackville J in Seven Network Limited v News Limited [2007] FCA 2059 , Gyles J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Global Prepaid Communications Pty Ltd (In Liq) [2008] FCA 874 at par [5] and Heerey J in Black  Decker Inc v Sunaone Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1827 at par [4] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 120 Infringement proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 138 Revocation of patents in other circumstances</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">application for a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information was part of the reason for the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether country information is non-disclosable information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 264">whether failure to disclose country information resulted in a denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 406">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 406">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 406">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 406">interlocutory dismissal of show cause application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 406">no arguable case of jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">application for review of rrt decision affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister refusing to grant applicants protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">applicants are citizens of india claiming fear of persecution for reasons of political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 207">no reviewable error.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 406" id="cs0">The applicant does not identify the manner in which the Tribunal is said to have erred in its application of the law. The relevant statutory scheme (ss.65 and 36 (2) of the Migration Act ) requires the Tribunal to reach a requisite level of satisfaction as to the criterion set out, relevantly, in s.36(2). Satisfaction of the criteria for the grant of the visa depends not on a particular matter being established but on the Minister (or the Tribunal standing in the shoes of the Minister) attaining a state of satisfaction as to a number of matters which have to exist for Australia to have protection obligations to an applicant under the Refugees Convention. [4] There is no legal principle which requires the Tribunal to give an applicant the benefit of the doubt. [5] Nor is the Tribunal under any obligation to uncritically accept any and all allegations made by an applicant. [6] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 207" id="cs1">In particular this issue has been addressed in SZHIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [6] where Jacobson J held at [10]- [11] that: The first ground [of appeal] is that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error because it did not afford the appellant the benefit of the doubt when there was no material to the contrary of that which the appellant asserted. However, it is clear in my view that this ground of appeal cannot succeed because it is contrary to the well established principles that apply to the provisions of s.65 of the Migration Act . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 532">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 532">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 532">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 532">production of documents by solicitor in response to s 77a bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 532">inadvertent tender of documents by counsel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 532">whether waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">decision under review is decision which refused access in whole or in part to a number of documents falling within a request for access made by the applicant under the freedom of information act 1982 (foi act)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">some concessions made by both parties and in consequence some withheld documents released</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">some documents withheld on the basis that the respondent is entitled to maintain a claim for legal professional privilege (lpp)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">issue as to whether respondent has in respect of those documents waived privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">considerations of section 36 (internal working documents), 37 (documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety) and 42 (documents subject to legal professional privilege) of the foi act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">consideration of why the applicant wants the withheld documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">discussion of settlement negotiations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">consideration of the finding of evasion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">assessment of evidence at hearing from parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">consideration of case law and legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">discussion of waiver of lpp outside "without prejudice meetings"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">assessment in detail of the foi act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">decision under review is affirmed in part and set aside in part</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] AATA 491">decision under review affirmed as to documents or parts of documents in respect of which the respondent need not give access and set aside in respect of the documents or parts of documents in respect of which access must be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">implied waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">issue waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">whereprivilege-holder acts inconsistently with the privilege by putting the contents of otherwise privileged documents in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">commissioner of taxation identified bases for satisfaction and exercises of discretion as matters evidenced in these documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">test of waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">implied waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">whereprivilege-holder puts his or her state of mind in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">whether privilege-holder had put his state of mind in issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1336">test of waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">letter conveying substance and effect of legal advice to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">inconsistency between disclosure and confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">waiver imputed where final conclusion of legal advice stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">voluntary disclosure of the conclusion of legal advice waives privilege in relation to undisclosed reasons for conclusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">disclosure of one conclusion does not necessarily waive privilege in relation to undisclosed conclusions  freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents privileged from production on grounds of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">principles relating to waiver of privilege in documents otherwise exempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">decision as to waiver involved an error on a question of law as to correct application of test for waiver of privilege freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">powers of tribunal under freedom of information act 1982 (cth) s 58</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal empowered to review any decision made by an agency or minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal stands in shoes of relevant agency or minister for purpose of administrative review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">power of tribunal to review decision of agency or minister not severable from power to determine threshold questions in relation to reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal not empowered to review decision to claim exemption from disclosure on grounds of privilege without reviewing validity of privilege claim itself freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents privileged from production on grounds of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents containing privileged matter not exempt if used by relevant agency to determine entitlements or obligations of persons generally under an enactment or scheme administered by that agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">legal advice provided in relation to particular case may fall within this category in some circumstances administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">limits upon power of court on appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 264">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 264">common law waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 264">whether the holder of the privilege has acted inconsistently with the maintenance of confidentiality of the communication in an examination under the bankruptcy act and in a pleading.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">mann v carnell  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">loss of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">waiver by disclosure to third party.  australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">separation of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">representative government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">nature of relationship between the act legislative assembly and the act executive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">stay and like relief pending hearing of application for special leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">jurisdiction to provide relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">extraordinary or exceptional character of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">ruling on legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">effective loss of confidentiality if relief refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">balance of convenience affecting lengthy trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">relief refused.   legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">client privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">protection of confidences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">nature of privilege as defensive of civic rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">loss of privilege by waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">whether client knowingly and voluntarily disclosed substance of advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">decision of primary judge arguably correct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">no substantial prospect of special leave to appeal being granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">interim relief refused.   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">client's legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">waiver of confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">whether client had disclosed to another person the substance of the advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">publication in company documents concerning receipt of legal advice supporting company's position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">decision that privilege waived arguably correct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">interim relief refused.   company law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">part b statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">independent valuer's report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">reference to existence of legal advice supporting the position of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.26">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">whether reference constitutes waiver of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.27">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">decision that it does arguably correct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.28">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">no substantial prospect of grant of special leave to appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.29">cited from="[1996] HCA 15">interim relief refused.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 60">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 60">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 60">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 60">communications between government and salaried legal advisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 60">prima facie evidence of deliberate abuse of statutory powers.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 29 Manner of applying for review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l5">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 8 Jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia and Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l7">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l8">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 42 Documents subject to legal professional privilege</title>
<title id="l9">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l10">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 170 Amendment of assessments</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 994">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 994">application for a stay pending an application for leave to appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of conduct of dismissal of employees and refusal to employ persons at the south grafton abattoir</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of part xa, divisions 2 and 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">ss 298k(1)(a) and (d) and prohibited purposes of membership of an industrial association, entitlements to the benefit of orders of the airc, participation in proceedings before the airc as a party and by giving evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">the expression of dissatisfaction of working conditions in the context of an industrial association seeking better conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of the circumstances required to be satisfied before a statutory presumption of a prohibited purpose arises for the purposes of s 298v. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of the approach to be adopted in dealing with a 'no case to answer' submission and whether a respondent ought to be put to an election as a condition of making the submission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of the basis upon which submission made and the relationship between the grounds advanced by the moving party and the need for an election. evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of the utility of the report of an expert and the extent to which the report failed to meet the standards required by the guidelines for expert witnesses in proceedings in the federal court of australia issued by the chief justice on 19 march 2004</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of the extent to which the report might be characterised as a piece of advocacy for a party. evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of the principles governing the reception of tendency evidence both generally and for the purposes of s 97 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 828">consideration of the circumstances in which inferences might be drawn from secondary facts in order to establish the fact in issue.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 122">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 122">application for compensation for non-economic loss under s 298u(c) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 122">whether appropriate to award compensation for non-economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 122">circumstances in which non-economic loss should be compensated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 122">evidence required to support claim for compensation for non-economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1847">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1847">application by union for injunctive relief and penalties in respect of contraventions of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1847">form of injunctive relief appropriate to remedy discrimination suffered by employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1847">whether union is entitled to apply for relief in respect of contraventions concerning employers who are not members of the union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1847">principles applicable to assessment of penalty for serious breaches of industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1847">whether the penalty imposed should be paid to the union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">part vib certified agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">where respondent admitted contravention at commencement of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">making of a declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">fixing of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">matters to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 497">mitigating factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">price-fixing understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">consideration of principles applicable to the imposition of an appropriate penalty for making and giving effect to the price-fixing understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">freedom of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">whether respondent bound by an award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">respondent admitting to breaches of s 298k(1) of workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">determination of penalty to be imposed on respondent pursuant to s 198u(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">whether contravention of s 298k(1) in respect of several employees constitutes a single offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">application of 'totality principle'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">factors to be considered in determining quantum of penalty. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">whether court has jurisdiction pursuant to s 32 of federal court act 1976 (cth) to declare effect of state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">whether issue is an 'associated matter'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">whether court has discretion to exercise jurisdiction over an 'associated matter'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">power to make declarations under s 21(1) of federal court act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">exercise of discretion to grant declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">circumstances militating against injunction to restrain future breaches. statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">principles of statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">purposive approach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">limitations on purposive approach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">history of residential aged care industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">practical considerations arising out of a particular interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">inclusive and exhaustive definitions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">use of words "means" and "includes". drugs, poisons  controlled substances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">whether the respondent, which conducts a residential aged care facility, is a 'health service' within the meaning of the drugs, poisons and controlled substances regulations 1995 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2004] FCA 375">interpretation of meaning of 'health service' pursuant to subreg 4(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 671">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 671">fair work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 671">proceedings commenced under s.718 of the workplace relations act 1966 for the imposition of penalties for the breach of s.346zd for the failure to make back-payments within a specified period after notification of failure of awas to meet the fairness test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 671">penalty orders made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 949">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 949">orders for payment of compensation and penalties as well as injunctive relief by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 949">whether penalties ought be paid to applicant or to the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 949">construction of building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth) s 49(5)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 949">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">general protection claim involving dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">application for compensation and pecuniary penalty for contravention of the fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">application for declarations that the respondent contravened general protection provisions of the fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether adverse action taken against employee by employer in breach of s 340(1) and s 346(1) of the fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether objective facts proved to establish contravention of workplace rights to enliven s 361 reverse onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">s 361 reverse onus enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">no evidence adduced of decision-making process of respondent in respect of adverse actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">s 361 reverse onus not discharged  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">jurisdictional issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether the employment agreement described as an itea is a "workplace instrument" for the purposes of s 340 of the fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">"workplace instrument" defined to be an instrument made under, or recognised by, a "workplace law" for the purposes of s 12 of the fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">where the fair work (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 2009 (cth) provides for the continued existence of an itea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether the fair work (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 2009 (cth) regulates relationships between employers and employees so that it is a "workplace law"  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">jurisdictional issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether applicant required to plead and prove there is an itea</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">where respondent has pleaded in its defence that an itea was made and that the employee had the benefit of it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">pleading treated as an admission that the itea was an itea for the purposes of the fair work act 2009 (cth)  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">jurisdictional issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether fair work act 2009 (cth) applies to pre-1 july 2009 conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether there is a relevant "workplace law" to support the "workplace right"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">found "workplace right" not limited to an entitlement or ability that arises under the fair work act 2009 (cth)  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">whether order under s 545 fair work act 2009 (cth) may order compensation for non economic loss such as distress, hurt and humiliation  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.23">citing from="[2011] FCA 333">payment of interest under s 51a federal court act of australia 1976 (cth) as part of judgment sum on compensation ordered under s 545 fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">whether termination of employment for reasons including temporary absence from work because of illness or injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">whether failure to give required period of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">whether orders under s.665 of the workplace relations act 1966 (cth) can be made against a person other than employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">whether breach of term of notional agreement preserving a state award (napsa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">remedies available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">whether napsa required superannuation payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">accessorial liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 853">factors relevant to assessment of penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of a pecuniary penalty to be imposed on three respondent unions in respect of contraventions of s 767(1) and s 768(1) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) arising out of entry by officials of the unions to premises at the abbot point coal terminal on 13 february 2009 and entry to those premises by officials of two respondent unions on 5 march 2009</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of the criteria to be applied in determining the amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of previous contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of the objects of the legislation, the counter-factual, context and circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of whether a pecuniary penalty ought to be paid to the applicant or to the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of whether an order for costs ought to be made in favour of the applicant under s 824 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 865">consideration of the continuing application of that act by operation of the fair work (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">breach of clauses of a notional agreement preserving a state award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">breach of three clauses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">proper approach to fixing penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">need for consideration of the circumstances of the particular case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">importance of deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 170">consideration of appropriate recipient of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">unlawful termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">whether proscribed reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">whether employee's work related injury was the reason, or part of the reason, for the termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">whether employer was first, second or third respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">respondents claimed employment was terminated because company ceased its operations and "closed down"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">applicant was singled out and treated differently to all other employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">other employees' employment "continued"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">piercing the corporate veil</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">companies used interchangeably</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 172">penalty imposed at the high end of the scale.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">conduct of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">where employees told if they signed australian workplace agreement there would be no change to their terms and conditions of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">where australian workplace agreements reduced the quantum of redundancy payments to which the employees were entitled under certified agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">where multiple breaches of workplace relations act 1996 (cth) arose out of single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">where respondents admitted liability before serious expense was incurred by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">relevant considerations in determining level of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 2033">penalty imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1883">industrial relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1883">termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1883">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1883">penalty imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1883">to be paid to the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1883">damages for loss of earnings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1883">no damages for distress, disruption, or injured feelings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 425">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 425">breadth of relief available for conduct in contravention of part xa of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 425">circumstances in which declaratory relief should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 425">principles governing the imposition of penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 425">when orders are appropriate and necessary to stop the contravening conduct and/or remedy its effects</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 671" id="cs0">

 Australian and Consumer Affairs Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd [2001] FCA 383 at [13] in a discussion in respect to deterrence it was stated:

 For a penalty to have the desired effect, it must be imposed at a meaningful level.
 These principles have been subsequently followed in prosecutions under workplace legislation in Cotis v Pow Juice Pty Ltd (supra) at [68]; Fair Work Ombudsman v Security Protection Services Pty Ltd  Ors [2010] FMCA 252 at [74] ; Rajagopalan v BM Sydney Building Materials Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 1412 at [27] --- [29]. There needs to be cogent evidence about the actual financial circumstances of a respondent in order for the Court to consider the factor in mitigation of a penalty: McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No.4) [2006] FCA 1302 at [98] ; Rajagopalan v BM Sydney Building Materials Pty Ltd (supra) at [29] where his Honour Driver FM recognised the need to adduce proper evidence of incapacity to pay for it to be a relevant consideration. The suggestion is advanced that such evidence is not before the Court and the issue of capacity to pay ought to have little, if any, relevance to the issue of mitigation. Mr and Mrs Love acknowledge that the Court may take into account the offenders capacity to pay the monetary penalty. The advice relied upon at Annexure 'A' to the affidavit of Mr Love was advice obtained following notification of the Fairness Test by the Department. The brevity of which the matter is expressed in the affidavit evidence does not place the Court in a position where it could weigh that fact in any meaningful way so the Court has no sense of materiality of the advice, the scope of the advice or the extent to which Mr and Mrs Love relied upon it. In order to be helpful and properly serve the interests of Mr and Mrs Love, it ought to have been disclosed: McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 1302 at [90] and [99] Until the law changed in May 2007, Drymist Holdings had successfully submitted AWAs which were subsequently approved. Once they became aware of the change in the law after the Workplace Authority sent the letter dated 3 September 2007, they sought advice from their lawyer for further assistance. During the period the Employee AWAs were being considered (March 2008) the Workplace Authority sent letters approving other AWAs that were submitted by Drymist Holdings.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 949" id="cs1">In McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 1302 ; (2006) 158 IR 181 , Greenwood J said at [103]:

 The qualification upon the exercise of the power is that such an order ought not to be made if it will result in a windfall gain. Such a windfall might arise in circumstances where the party receiving the benefit of the order has already received compensation pursuant to s 298U both as to any economic loss in respect of the contravention and any non-economic loss in the nature of general damages.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 333" id="cs2">In a similar vein, in McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 1302 ; (2006) 158 IR 181 , at [87], Greenwood J in this Court considered both s 298U(c) and s 298U(e) of the former WR Act and held that the Court had the power to award compensation for non economic loss. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 853" id="cs3">Penalties may be paid to persons other than the Crown ( Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Austral Bricks (Qld) Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 143 ; (2009) 178 IR 470). Such a power may be intended to encourage individuals (in that case, a union) to sue for breach. There have been a number of cases in which orders have been made for payments of penalties to a union (cf McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 1302 ; (2006) 158 IR 181 and Schanka and Others v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2001] FCA 1623 ; (2001) 114 FCR 379). In this case the applicant is a person affected by the actions of the second respondent. In Canturi and Another v Sita Coaches Pty Ltd and Another [2002] FCA 349 ; (2002) 116 FCR 276 , a penalty was ordered to be paid to an individual applicant without any consideration of the issue (although, as counsel for the applicant pointed out, there was a suggestion in that case that the proceedings had been maintained by the employment advocate).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 865" id="cs4">Whilst the discretion is at large and informed by the particular circumstances of a contravention, the discretion should be exercised broadly according to settled principle which nevertheless recognises the important flexibility necessary to adapt the exercise of the discretion to particular conduct, the contextual circumstances of that conduct and any other matter relevant to the exercise of the discretion. Judges of this Court have sought to isolate principles or criteria informing the exercise of the discretion to impose a pecuniary penalty and the quantum of the penalty. The observations of Branson J in Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union v Coal  Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1999] FCA 1714 ; (1999) 94 IR 231 at [8] are well known and have been applied regularly in this Court (some examples of which are Australian Nursing Federation v Alcheringa Hostel Inc. [2004] FCA 375 ; (2004) 138 IR 122 per Ryan J at [44]; Alfred v Walter Construction Group Limited [2005] FCA 497 per Branson J at [10]; Employment Advocate v Barclay Mowlem Construction Ltd (2005) 139 IR 237 per Branson J at [4]; Hadgkiss v Blevin [2004] FCA 917 per Conti J at [3]; Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 ; (2007) 166 IR 14 per Tracey J and Stuart-Mahoney v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 1426 per Tracey J at [39]; McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2006] FCA 1302 ; (2006) 158 IR 181 at [92] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 170" id="cs5">62 Although the penalty imposed by Merkel J in Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia was reduced on appeal to the Full Court, no criticism was made by the Full Court of the above observations of his Honour (see Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Finance Sector Union [2007] FCAFC 18 ; (2007) 157 FCR 329). We consider it appropriate to endorse them. See also McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 1302 ; (2006) 158 IR 181 at [108] and Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia Services Union of Australia v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2007] FCA 1607 at [18] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 172" id="cs6">These were: Andrew James Fox v St Barbara Mines Ltd [1998] FCA 621 (4 June 1998) per French J. McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2006] FCA 1302 (4 October 2006) per Greenwood J at [92] to [99]. Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Coal  Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1999] FCA 1714 ; [1999] FCA 1714 ; (1999) 94 IR 231 per Branson J. Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 1847 (16 December 2005) per Merkel J. at [24].  Barhoum v All Districts Coating Pty Ltd  Anor [2008] FMCA 172 (22 February 2008)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Magistrates Court of Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Federal Magistrates Court of Australia  2008  [2008] FMCA 172

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] Barhoum v All Districts Coating Pty Ltd  Anor [2008] FMCA 172 (22 February 2008)
Last Updated: 27 March 2008

 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 BARHOUM v ALL DISTRICTS COATING PTY LTD  ANOR [2008] FMCA 172
 INDUSTRIAL LAW --- Unlawful termination --- whether proscribed reason --- whether employee's work related injury was the reason, or part of the reason, for the termination --- whether employer was first, second or third respondent --- respondents claimed employment was terminated because company ceased its operations and "closed down" --- applicant was singled out and treated differently to all other employees --- other employees' employment "continued" --- piercing the corporate veil --- companies used interchangeably --- penalty imposed at the high end of the scale. Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss.580 , 659 , 663 , 664 , 665 , 841
 Workplace Relations Regulations 2006 reg.2.12.8
 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 ; (1959) 101 CLR 298
 Andrew James Fox v St Barbara Mines Ltd [1998] FCA 621 (4 June 1998)
 McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2006] FCA 1302 (4 October 2006)
 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Coal  Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No. 2) [1999] FCA 1714 ; (1999) 94 IR 231
 Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2005] FCA 1847
 Greater Dandenong City Council v Australian Municipal, Clerical and Services Union [2001] FCA 349
 Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Limited [2001] FCA 1623
 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing  Allied Services Union of Australia v ACI Operations Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 7
 Applicant: EAD BARHOUM
 First Respondent: ALL DISTRICTS COATING PTY LTD
 Second Respondent: ALL DISTRICTS COATING (AUST) PTY LTD
 Third Respondent: CARLOS HABIBEH
 Fourth Respondent: RITA HABIBEH
 File Number: SYG 1589 of 2007
 Judgment of: Nicholls FM
 Hearing dates: 9 February, 8 March, 25 May 2007
 Date of Last Submission: 17 July 2007
 Delivered at: Sydney
 Delivered on: 22 February 2008
 REPRESENTATION
 Appearing for the Applicant: Ms L Charlson
 Appearing for the Respondents: Mr A Sandroussi
 ORDERS

 (1) The first respondent and/or second respondent and/or third respondent, having breached the requirements of s.659(2)(a) of the Act, pay a penalty of $7,000. (2) The payment of such penalty be made to the NSW Branch of the Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union within twenty-eight (28) days of the making of this order. (3) Within fourteen (14) days of the making of these orders, each of the parties file and serve written submissions and/or evidence by way of affidavit in relation to the reinstatement to employment of the applicant, and the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant. (4) Each of the parties file and serve written submissions within fourteen (14) days of the making of these orders on the issue of costs in these proceedings to the date of this judgement. (5) Leave is granted to the parties on three (3) days notice to seek further directions in relation to the matters arising from Orders 3 and 4.
 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
 COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
 SYDNEY
 SYG 1589 of 2007
 EAD BARHOUM
Applicant

And

 ALL DISTRICTS COATING PTY LTD
First Respondent
 ALL DISTRICTS COATING (AUST) PTY LTD
Second Respondent

 CARLOS HABIBEH
Third Respondent

 RITA HABIBEH
Fourth Respondent

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 (As Corrected)
 This is an application made on 2 June 2006 pursuant to s.663 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("the Act") seeking orders pursuant to s.665 of the Act in respect of what is said to be a contravention of s.659 of the Act, constituting the unlawful termination of the employment of Mr Ead Barhoum ("the applicant") by the respondents. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 2033" id="cs7">• There is a strong need for general deterrence of the type of conduct engaged in by the respondents in the present case. • The conduct complained of undermines the legislative objective that AWAs should be the product of free bargaining between the parties. • The totality principle which I explained in greater detail in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 at [30] and the appropriateness of fixing a total penalty for a course of conduct: as to which see McIlwain v Lamsay Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No 4) [2006] FCA 1302 ; (2006) 158 IR 181 at 216-7. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1883" id="cs8">The applicant contends that on the basis of the decision in McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 4) (2006) 158 IR 181 ; [2006] FCA 1302 the applicant in these circumstances is entitled to general damages in addition to compensation for economic loss. It is contended that Justice Greenwood there found that the provisions empowered him to order general damages in addition to economic loss, albeit in modest amounts. In that case one applicant was awarded $3,000 and the other applicant $4,000 for general damages. It is noted that the provisions are not identical to the Work Choices provisions, but it is submitted that they are not relevantly different when it comes to compensation. The consideration of the question of compensation begins at p.204 in paragraph 58. At paragraph 60, his Honour concluded that: The consequence in this case of conduct of that character is that 12 individuals suffered a fracturing of the employment relationship, lost the right to derive a gross income from the relevant abattoir entity comprised of the components making up that remuneration and 11 of them were refused re-engagement when the re-engagement process commenced.
At paragraph 64, his Honour found that:

 the economic loss flowing from the contravening conduct to be awarded to each individual is the amount set out at [380]...

In paragraph 65 his Honour considered the question of general damages, and in paragraph 66, his Honour sets out the section (s.298U(c) of the previous Act) that allowed the Court to award "compensation of such an amount as the Court thinks appropriate".
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AIRC 606" id="cs9">BY THE COMMISSION:

 SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

 Hearing Details:

 Brisbane, 27 July 2007

 Appearances:

 For the Applicant --- Mr Craig Buckley of the The Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union

 For the Respondent - No Appearance
 Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Price code

 [1] McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 828 (30 June 2006)

 [2] McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd No.4 [2006] FCA 1302 (4 October 2006)

 [3] Statement of Peter Geoffrey Wright at PN11

 [4] Attachment A to Statement of Peter Geoffrey Wright

 [5] Statement of Peter Geoffrey Wright at PN13

 [6] Applicant's submissions at PN4

 [7] Ibid at PN B1

 [8] Transcript of hearing on 27 July 2007 at PNS73-76

 [9] Statement of Peter Geoffrey Wright at PN15

 [10] Applicant's submissions at page 26

 [11] [1999] FCA 1492 (29 October 1999)

 [12] Ibid at PNS 32-34

 [13] In the decision of the High Court of Australia in Waterside Workers Federation of Australia v JW Alexander Limited [1918] HCA 56 ; (1918) 25 CLR 434 Isaac and Rich JJ discussed the difference between arbitral power and judicial power : see in particular at page 463

 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
 URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AIRC/2007/606.html

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 425" id="cs10">17 In McIlwain v Ramsey Food Packaging Pty Ltd (No. 4) [2006] FCA 1302 Greenwood J made numerous declarations in respect of contraventions of s 298K(1)(a) of the Act, which falls within Part XA; ordered the payment of numerous penalties in respect of conduct in contravention of Part XA of the Act in accordance with s 298U and ordered the payment by certain of the respondents of compensation to certain individuals consequent upon their dismissal in contravention of s 298K(1)(a) of the Act for reasons proscribed by s 298L(1) of the Act, which also fell within Part XA of the Act. In ordering the compensation payments Greenwood J accepted the applicant's contention that s 298U(c), (e) and (f) of the Act, properly construed, were sufficiently broad to provide, in a proper case, a foundation upon which a sum analogous to general damages might be identified as compensation for the disturbance, disruption, loss of opportunity and loss of secure employment occasioned by the termination of employment in breach of Part XA of the Act (see [65]).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l1">FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT 1997 - SECT 33 Finance Minister may approve act of grace payments</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l4">FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND ACCOUNTABILITY REGULATIONS 1997 </title>
<title id="l5">WORKPLACE RELATIONS REGULATIONS 2006 </title>
<title id="l6">FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 2005 NO. 8, 2005 </title>
<title id="l7">INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l8">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l9">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 102 Particular rights of intervention of Minister</title>
<title id="l10">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 356 Prohibited content</title>
<title id="l11">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 807 Penalties etc. for contravention of civil remedy provisions</title>
<title id="l12">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 - SECT 841 Application of penalty</title>
</legistitles>
</case>