Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">when summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) may be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether order for summary dismissal under s 31a is interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether leave to appeal should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether a further opportunity to amend a further amended statement of claim should be allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">consideration of interests of justice  held: leave to appeal necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">application for leave dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">amendment of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">where applicant sought leave to amend points of claim some three years after proceedings commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">where party in default claimed it had always intended to make those amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">where significant prejudice to other party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">decision in j l holdings considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">whether reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2009] FMCA 769">tests for insolvency considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 147">express trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 147">creation by unilateral declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 147">certainty of intention and object</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 147">conveyancing act 1919 (nsw) s 23c(1)(b) and (c) requirement of writing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 147">construction of a written document in the context in which it was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 147">actual present intention to create a fixed trust for the benefit of the children disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">motion for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">alleged estoppels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 611">abuse of process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2038">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2038">declaration of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2038">where equitable property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2038">whether principles in milroy v lord apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2038">whether imperfect gift</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 2038">whether jones v dunkel inference.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">commissioner published guidelines to effect that he would concede confidentiality in respect of, and deny himself access to, certain advising papers of external accountants, unless he or an officer of a certain rank of the australian taxation office ("ato") should decide that there were "exceptional circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">in proceedings before the court, being appeals under part ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth), taxpayers gave discovery, and claimed that certain documents discovered were covered by the "accountants' concession" within the guidelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">officer of appropriate rank within the ato decided that there were exceptional circumstances, and approved of access to the documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">different ato officer caused a notice to produce the documents to issue to taxpayers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">taxpayers issued this present proceeding challenging the senior officer's decision allowing access, under s 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) ("ad(jr) act") and under s 39b(1) and (1a) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) (" judiciary act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">application for summary dismissal of proceeding based on suggested incompetency of present application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether decision to allow access was a "decision of an administrative character made ... under an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether guidelines were "an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">scope of "matter ... arising under any laws made by the parliament" within s 39b(1a)(c) of judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">test for summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">meaning of "no reasonable prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">summary dismissal of proceedings against certain respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application of s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">inapplicability to applications to strike out parts of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">nature of "reasonable prospect" assessment required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit of respondents denying relevant knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit unanswered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">generality of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit material insufficient to demonstrate no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">motion for summary dismissal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">strikeout application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether s 31a federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) applies to proceedings commenced before operation of section</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">breach of contract claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether subsequent grievance procedure formed part of contract of employment and applied to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether statements made at time of termination made in trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether unconscionable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 458">whether, if federal claims struck out, jurisdiction for defamation claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 137">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 137">application for leave to appeal against decision of docket judge refusing an application to enter summary judgment in favour of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 137">no prima facie defence shown on the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 137">whether summary judgment ought to be refused where a respondent merely seeks to put applicant to proof of its case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 137">significance of recent enactment of s 31a of federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 137">effect of the formula 'no reasonable prospect of successfully defending the proceeding'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 137">application for leave to appeal granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">agreement between two brewing companies to settle a number of disputes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">agreement required amendments to one company's articles of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">alleged agreement that company would comply with articles as amended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether implementation of share buy-back under corporations act amounted to breach of settlement agreement contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">articles of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">pre-emptive rights provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether they apply to a buy-back offer under div 2, pt 2j.1 of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">meaning of "any transfer of shares" contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">articles of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">principles of construction to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">resort to "surrounding circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether ambiguity has to be shown in first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether special considerations apply in relation to construing a company's constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether ordinary rules of contract construction apply. corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">share buy-back</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">articles create a tiered pre-emptive rights regime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether this constitutes a restriction on, or prohibition of, the buy-back power given by the corporations act for the purposes of s 125(1). corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">share buy-back</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether pre-emptive rights regime applies to buy back under s 257a of corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[2005] FCA 1812">whether schemes can be construed together</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">where edited version of file note produced in response to subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">where objection to producing unedited version taken on grounds of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">whether effect of o 33 r 11(5) federal court rules is to extend operation of evidence act 1995 (cth) to pre-trial production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">whether o 33 r 11 federal court rules prevents court from compelling pre-trial production of documents that cannot be adduced in evidence at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">proceedings relating to decisions of minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs refusing grant of student visa and refusing revocation of refusal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">where minister contended certain information protected under s 503a of migration act 1958 ("the act ")  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether anshun estoppel should apply to judicial review of administrative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">questions concerning the construction of s 503a of the act unreasonably not raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether special circumstances exist that permit raising questions in these proceedings that should reasonably have been raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">no special circumstances found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">in the matter of an appeal by gaye alexandra mary luck  appeal against order refusing leave to issue process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">whether leave to appeal required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">where proposed action frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 70">whether order final or interlocutory.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">public liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">indemnity to insured and its contractors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">contractor engaged at date of claim but not when policy issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">entitlement to indemnity.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">no-liability companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">agreement to take new shares on allotment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">whether right to sue for outstanding moneys</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">the companies acts, 1961 to 1964 (q.), s. 320.  practice (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">applications for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">leave to defend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">issue of law only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">rules of the supreme court (q.), o. 18 r. 1.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">powers on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">appeal from refusal of primary judge to grant leave to enter summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">issue of law only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">full argument on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 41">decision to allow appeal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">injury by accident arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">death of worker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">negligence of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">option of dependants to apply for compensation or take other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">award of compensation obtained by widow on behalf of herself and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">effect of award as barring claim by dependants under lord campbell's act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation acts 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">1946 (no. 3806</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">no. 5128) (vict.)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">wrongs act 1928 (no. 3807) (vict.), part iii.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">the 1946 workers' compensation rules, rr. 8, 81.*  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">supreme court (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">dismissal of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">rules of the supreme court (vict.), order xxv., rr. 2, 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">sex discrimination act 1984 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">interim applications. application to strike out part of further amended points of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether points of claim disclose reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">embarrassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether failure to plead material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether striking-out appropriate in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">pleadings in proceedings in the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether leave to replead.application to consolidate or hear together matters instituted by two former employees of the first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether in the interests of justice to do so. application for separate determination of questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 457">whether just and convenient.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 457" id="cs0">Counsel for Mr Brown submitted generally that this complaint demonstrated a case that was compellingly weak and hence that it was all the more reasonable, fair, just and convenient that the liability case against Mr Brown be heard separately from the lengthier and more involved claim Ms Wylie brought against McCanns, albeit if there was to be a question of damages that could be dealt with at the time it would arise in the normal course of the main hearing. Counsel for Mr Brown also submitted that the risk of an appeal from any determination of separate questions, should be given little weight in the balancing exercise in the circumstances of this case, given that there was always such a risk and if that was to be a significant impediment it would mean that the provision in the Rules for determination of separate questions would have almost no utility. Counsel for McCanns acknowledged that the test was that there should be seen to be a " clear advantage" in granting an application for a separate determination of questions in the interests of justice ( Pascoe v Boensch [2009] FCA 1240 at [1] ) and supported the submissions of Mr Brown. It was submitted that this case was unusual in that while a number of matters were alleged against McCanns under the SDA arising out of an employment contract, attached to that case was what was said to be a quite separate claim about the so-called Paul Brown Conduct which, however, had significant ramifications in terms of the court's time and the parties' costs. It was submitted that (subject to the result of the strike-out application) if this matter was not dealt with separately McCanns' case would necessarily involve preparation of at least significant submissions and possibly also evidence in relation to the allegations of agency given the allegations by Ms Wylie that McCanns was liable on principles of agency for the Paul Brown Conduct.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COURT PROCEDURES RULES 2006 </title>
<title id="l1">COURT PROCEDURES RULES 2006 - REG 501 Amendment—when must be made</title>
<title id="l2">COURT PROCEDURES RULES 2006 - REG 502 Amendment—of documents</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 120 Undervalued transactions</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 121 Transfers to defeat creditors</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 17A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l11">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l12">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 24 Validity not affected by certain publication or use</title>
<title id="l13">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 158 Appeals</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l16">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 1.03 Objects</title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 13.10 Disposal by summary dismissal</title>
<title id="l18">MIGRATION LITIGATION REFORM ACT 2005 NO. 137, 2005 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>