Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 943">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 943">unregistered managed investment scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 943">application for distribution of surplus assets in winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 943">whether distribution may depart from investors' proprietary rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 943">form of directions to receiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] NSWSC 943">whether court should make findings of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">remedies of beneficiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">mixing of money held on trust for several beneficiaries in bank account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">insufficiency of account to meet claims on it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">how insufficiency should be borne</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">whether clayton's case applicable to decide proprietary interests in money remaining in account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator of company which held money of several beneficiaries in trust account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator's responsibility concerning distribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">whether clayton's case applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">banking and financial institutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">banker and customer and business of banking generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">present role of clayton's case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator's application for directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">application concerning one question in which representative of affected class appointed, and concerning other questions where no representative of affected persons appointed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">who bound by decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">money paid into trust account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">whether trust created</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">effect of first instance decision altered on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">decisions of english court of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">effect of judge's decision about legal rights arising in a factual situation which he has held does not exist</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.28">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.29">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.30">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">liquidator of company which is trustee of assets, and has other assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.31">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">when liquidator's costs paid from assets subject of security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.32">cited from="[2003] NSWSC 1008">when liquidator's costs payable from trust assets</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKING ACT 1959 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 447D Administrator may seek directions</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 479 Exercise and control of liquidator's powers</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601EB Registration of managed investment scheme</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601EE Unregistered schemes may be wound up</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601NF Other orders about winding up</title>
<title id="l7">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l8">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - CLAUSE 9 Constitution [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1244">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1244">scope of remittal to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1244">whether veteran on operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1244">time for determination of clinical onset of medical conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1244">application of relevant sops</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1244">definition of severe psychological stressor in relevant sops</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">limited remittal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">remittal on dates of operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">veterans' entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">disability pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">operational and eligible service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">reasonable hypothesis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">statements of principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">diagnosis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">no ptsd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">veteran suffers anxiety disorder, hypertension  alcohol abuse which are not war-caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2010] AATA 498">decision under review varied.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1244" id="cs0">In her reasons for judgment on the appeal from the First Tribunal Decision, Branson J determined the first question adversely to Mr Kaluza but her Honour determined the second question favourably to him. Her Honour set aside the First Tribunal Decision and remitted the matter to the Veterans' Appeal Division of the Tribunal to be determined according to law: Kaluza v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 1365. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 498" id="cs1">Ms Eastman submitted that in Repatriation Commission v Nation [1995] FCA 1277 ; (1995) 57 FCR 25 , the remittal was that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law after admitting further evidence as it considered appropriate. She contrasted that with Justice Branson's order in Kaluza v Repatriation Commission [2008] FCA 1365 ; (2008) 171 FCR 168 which was not an order that the whole matter be remitted. She submitted from Nation , that where an order is ambiguous, it may be permissible to resort to extrinsic material, including the reasons for judgment to resolve the ambiguity... That did not apply to Justice Branson's order, Ms Eastman submitted. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l3">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 5B War and operational area related definitions</title>
<title id="l4">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 6C Operational service--post World War 2 service in operational areas</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">application for injunctions for threatened infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">claim that patent is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">lack of novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">lack of fair basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">whether serious issue to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">whether applicant for injunctions would suffer irreparable harm for which damages would not be adequate compensation unless an injunction is granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">proposed applications for listing of pharmaceutical products on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1218">applications for injunctions refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">method claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">product claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">supply by defendant to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">fair basing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">alleged prior publication in 1907</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">effect thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">double claiming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">lack of title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">false suggestion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1065">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1065">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1065">whether claims in standard patent fairly based on provisional specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1065">whether method of treatment of disease or other abnormality in human being may be made the subject of a valid grant of letters patent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">duties of excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">exclusive power of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">abalone licence fee imposed under state law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">amount of fee related to quantity authorized to be taken under licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">whether tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">the constitution (63 and 64 vict c 12), s. 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">fisheries act 1959 (tas.), s. 3a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 47">sea fisheries regulations 1962 (tas.), reg. 17a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">grazing licence granted pursuant to statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">not assignable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">terminable on notice by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether estate or interest in land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether profit a prendre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">crown lands act 1931 (n.t.), s. 107(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">crown land regulations (n.t.), regs. 70, 71, 71a.  aboriginal lands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">traditional land claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">unalienated crown land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">application to aboriginal land commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1970 (cth), s. 50.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">commissioner to ascertain whether aboriginals traditional owners of land and if so to recommend grant of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">findings to be reported to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">requirement to have regard to various matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">requirement to comment on other matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">whether in deciding whether to recommend grant commissioner bound to have regard to matters for comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 69">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976 (cth), s. 50.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">northern territory v collins  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">contributory infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">respondents owned patent for methods of producing oils from species of a particular genus of tree</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">appellant territory licensed third party ("acoc") to enter crown land and remove timber from trees of this species</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">patents act 1990 (cth), s 117(1) provided that, if "use of a product by a person" would infringe a patent, "supply" of that product by one person to another was an infringement by supplier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">respondents alleged territory infringed patent by supply of timber to acoc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">relationship between exclusive rights to exploit patent and s 117</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">meaning of "product" in s 117 where patent said to be infringed is for method or process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">whether "product" confined to product that itself results from use of a patented method or process.  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">contributory infringement -meaning of "supply" in s 117</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">whether grant of licences to sever and take timber from crown land constituted "supply" of timber by territory for purposes of s 117(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">relevance of classification of interest of acoc as realty or personalty.  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">contributory infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">section 117(2)(b) provided that "use of a product by a person" in s 117(1) meant "any use" if product was not a "staple commercial product"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">meaning of "staple commercial product"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">citing from="[2008] HCA 49">whether timber taken by acoc under licences a "staple commercial product".</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] HCA 49" id="cs0">His Honour noted the timber, or the bark and wood from the timber, is "but an input into the process by which" the oil was produced [42] . His Honour concluded that the decision of the Northern Territory "not to maintain the plan to allow further growth of the trees on the Howard Springs land for harvesting for timber" [47] did not deprive the timber of its character as a "staple commercial product". However, the main basis for his Honour's conclusion, that there was no "supply" within the meaning of s 117 , was his finding that the licences were merely "permissive" [43] . The primary judge found that the trees and timber retained commercial value to the Northern Territory, and that there were residual commercial uses for them, for example, use as milled timber, woodchip mulch, pine oil extraction, potting mix and firewood [46] . His Honour also assumed for those purposes "that ACOC's alleged actions have infringed [the patent]" [40] . The primary judge had decided the issues as follows [4] :

"[T]he grant of the licences to ACOC in their terms, and in their context, did not amount to the supply of the timber to ACOC so as to expose [the Territory] to liability as a contributory infringer of the patent under s 117(1) of the Act , even if - contrary to my conclusion - the conduct amounted to the use of the timber within s 117(2)(b) of the Act , and even assuming on the Collins' favour that the timber was used by ACOC so as to infringe the patent". Mr and Mrs Collins had accepted that, but for the fact that the Northern Territory had "written off" the Howard Springs Plantation as a commercial crop for use as timber, the timber in question would have been a "staple commercial product" [45] . The evidence disclosed that by November 1995 this expectation had been disappointed and the timber from the cypress pine plantations was no longer considered to be of suitable commercial quality for the original purposes for which the trees had been planted [33] . His Honour also made a finding of fact that the Northern Territory had reason to believe that ACOC would use the bark and wood from the timber in combination for the purpose of producing blue cypress oil [48] . Mansfield J considered that what had been supplied by the Northern Territory to ACOC was the timber, and ACOC then took the bark and wood of the timber and produced blue cypress oil from them [41] . The primary judge (Mansfield J) directed that there be a separate trial of issues as to whether [39] :

"a. the [Northern Territory] has supplied a product to [ACOC] the use of which would infringe the patent;
b. the product supplied by the [Northern Territory] ... is not a staple commercial product and its use is one which the [Northern Territory] had reason to believe would be used to produce a blue coloured oil by a process protected by the patent. His Honour said the word "supply" does [44]

"not readily accommodate a licence which merely enabled ACOC to go upon the territory's land at Howard Springs and to harvest the trees there and to remove the timber so harvested.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 117 Infringement by supply of products</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">veterans' entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">defence force retirement and death benefit scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">applicant survives deceased person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">applicant not living with deceased member as his wife for a continuous period up to the time of his death</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">applicant did not ordinarily live with the deceased member on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis at the time of his death</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">consideration of 'marital relationship'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">living arrangements not due to temporary absence or special circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2008] AATA 1013">decision under review affirmed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] SCTA 3" id="cs0">It is clear that, at the date of death of the Deceased Member, he was legally married to the Complainant. Under the Rules, however, this is not sufficient to establish a 'marital relationship'. In Harris v Trustee Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme [2006] FCA 373 His Honour Justice Conti, in considering the application of an earlier, but materially identical, version of Sections 8A and 8B, said;

... one of the two foundations for the entitlement of a person to assert the existence of a 'marital relationship' with another is that the former had been living with that other person as that other person's husband or wife for a continuous period of at least 3 years up to' a particular time for the purposes of the operation of ss 8A and 8B. The other is the alternative of having so lived 'for a continuous period of less than 3 years up to that time' but in circumstances constituting in the opinion of the Commissioner 'that the person ordinarily lived with that other person as that other person's husband or wife on a permanent and bona fide basis'.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] AATA 1013" id="cs1">Despite the finding that Ms Hancox was not living with Mr Stevens up to or at the time of his death she will be taken, under s 6A(5) of the Act, to have been so doing if she would have been living with him except for a period of temporary absence or absence because of special circumstances. Examples of the latter are given in the provision as being absence because of the illness, infirmity or posting of Mr Stevens. I accept the submission of Mr Dillon in relation to this provision. The absence must be from a previous state of affairs which constituted a marital relationship in accordance with the preceding components of s 6A of the Act. Where that is the case, a temporary absence of a party due, for example, to an interstate or international business trip or an absence due to the special circumstance of, say, hospitalisation, will not vitiate the existence of a marital relationship [17] . In this matter, the marital relationship did not exist at any time and s 6A(5) of the Act is not applicable.
  As Ms Hancox was not living with Mr Stevens as his wife for any continuous period up to the time of his death, neither s 6A(2)(a) or (b) of the Act is met. This means that s 6A(1) of the Act is not satisfied and it is not necessary to consider the further requirement expressed in s 6A(1) of the Act. Nonetheless, I make brief reference to that requirement which is that the state of Ms Hancox's living with Mr Stevens as his wife for a continuous period must have been ordinarily the case and have been on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis at the time of his death [13] . That is also the second element in s 6A(2)(b) of the Act. [14]  As Ms Hancox was not living with Mr Stevens as his wife for any continuous period up to the time of his death, neither s 6A(2)(a) or (b) of the Act is met. This means that s 6A(1) of the Act is not satisfied and it is not necessary to consider the further requirement expressed in s 6A(1) of the Act. Nonetheless, I make brief reference to that requirement which is that the state of Ms Hancox's living with Mr Stevens as his wife for a continuous period must have been ordinarily the case and have been on a permanent and bona fide domestic basis at the time of his death [13] . That is also the second element in s 6A(2)(b) of the Act. [14] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] SCTA 194" id="cs2">In closing, the Tribunal wishes to record that it has considered the decision of Conti J in the Federal Court in the matter of Harris v Trustee Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme and anor [2006] FCA 373 , delivered 5 April 2006 ( Harris ) which upholds a Trustee's decision to deny the appellant a surviving spouse pension. It reviewed the facts of that case and is aware that there are some similarities. However, the Tribunal is of the view that this matter is clearly distinguishable on the facts. Without listing all of the points of difference, it is clear that, unlike the relationship in Harris, the Complainant and her husband had, for many years, been committed to each other as the married couple that they were, and, very significantly, they were living together when the Deceased Member died. They were in each other's company, and shared their living and sleeping arrangements more often than not. They shared the same motor vehicle, which was jointly owned, and they attended medical appointments together. The Complainant cooked for and cared for her husband. The Tribunal does not consider, therefore, that the Harris case is binding on it, and, for the reasons set out above, it does not regard the judicial comments therein dealing with the test in sub-s(3) of s8B to have any application to this review. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 - SECT 8A Marital or couple relationship</title>
<title id="l3">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 - SECT 8B Spouse who survives a deceased person</title>
<title id="l4">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 - SECT 81 Entitlement to spouse's benefit under Division</title>
<title id="l5">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 - SECT 82 Spouse's benefit where benefit not reduced on medical grounds and election not made under section 83 or 84</title>
<title id="l6">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 - SECT 83 Election where pension not reduced on medical grounds</title>
<title id="l7">SUPERANNUATION ACT 1976 - SECT 84 Election where benefit not reduced on medical grounds and period of prospective service less than 8 years</title>
<title id="l8">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l9">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 19 Tribunal not to deal with complaint unless the complainant has attempted to have the matter resolved</title>
<title id="l10">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 23 Right to representation in relation to a complaint</title>
<title id="l11">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 37 Tribunal powers--complaints under section 14</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l13">De Facto Relationships Act 1984 No 147 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 78">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 78">whether fresh compliance with s 425 was necessary when the first tribunal hearing could not proceed and a new date allocated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 78">applicant consented to the tribunal deciding the review without his appearing before it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 78">non-attendance at tribunal hearing migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 78">s 424a complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 78">reason for the decision the absence of information provided not the information itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 470">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 470">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 470">definition of 'refugee' in migration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 470">application of article 1 of convention and protocol relating to the status of refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 470">whether refugee is recognised in host country as having the rights and obligations attached to nationality.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">application for permanent residence in australia by spouse of person having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">validity of decision to refuse application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">failure of minister to take into account relevant material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">unreasonableness of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">ambit of material relevant for consideration in determining reasonableness.  migration act 1958 ss. 6 , 6a  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 s.5  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">review of minister's decision refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to australia, spouse having permanent resident status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether minister had failed to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">whether exercise of power was so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have so exercised the power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">taking of further evidence to adduce facts not before the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss 5(1)(e) , 5 (2), 5 (2)(a), 5 (2)(b), 5 (2)(f), 5 (2)(g), 6 (2), 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 6 , 6a. in an application for review of a decision of the minister for immigration and ethnic affairs made in 1984 refusing an application for a permanent entry permit to an applicant who was the spouse of a permanent resident on the basis that the applicant's marriage had been assessed as being one where the parties did not genuinely intend to continue living as a married couple in australia, it being the minister's policy to refuse permanent entry permits in such cases.  held: (1) that relevant considerations which should have been taken into account were not, thus making the minister's decision invalid pursuant to s 5(2)(b) of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (the act), such considerations being:  (i) a report made in 1981 by an interviewing officer in suva expressing an opinion that the marriage relationship was genuine, such report being part of the history of the relationship, all of which was relevant in determining the quality of the marriage as at the date of the minister deciding the application. although the report was not presented to the minister, it was on the departmental file and was accordingly to be regarded as being constructively before him.  peko-wallsend ltd v. minister for aboriginal affairs (1985) 59 alr 51 , referred to.  (ii) statutory declarations of neighbours and acquaintances as to the applicant leading a normal married life and a letter of a social worker as to the applicant's wife living at home with the applicant, such documents being available to the minister, but there being nothing to indicate that he had taken any account of them.  (2) that in determining whether an administrative decision made under statutory authority falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1985] FCA 47">(a) the court should construe that paragraph in the light of the common law principle of which that paragraph is a legislative enactment, that principle being stated by lord diplock in bromley london borough city council v. greater london council (1983) 1 ac 768 to be the invalidation of administrative decisions "that looked at objectively are so devoid of any plausible justification that no reasonable body of persons could have reached them" and by menzies j in parramatta city council v. pestell [1972] hca 59 ; (1972) 128 clr 305 to be the invalidation of an administrative decision "based on an opinion which could not be justified on any reasonable grounds".  perkins v. cuthill [1981] fca 44 ; (1981) 34 alr 669 ; plegas v. mccabe (unreported, federal court of australia, lockhart j, 3 august 1984; willara pty ltd v. mcveigh (1984) 54 alr 65 ; re w (an infant) (1971) ac 682 ; associated provincial picture houses v. wednesbury corporation [1947] ewca civ 1 ; (1948) 1 kb 223 ; secretary of state for education and science v. tameside metropolitan borough council [1976] ukhl 6 ; (1977) ac 1014 ; borkovic v. minister for immigration and ethnic affairs (1981) 39 alr 186 ; hamblin v. duffy [1981] fca 38 ; (1981) 50 flr 308 ; mixnam's properties ltd v. chertsey urban district council (1964) 1 qb 214 , referred to.  (b) the court is entitled to consider those facts which were known to the decision-maker actually or constructively together only with such additional facts as the decision-maker would have learned but for any unreasonable conduct by him where such facts are obtainable from material that is readily available.  (3) that, having taken further evidence relating to the matters arising out of the interviews by the departmental officer, and having reviewed and analysed the evidence and the manner in which the decision was reached by the minister, and bearing in mind the strength of the case required before it may be said that a decision falls within s 5(2)(g) of the act, the minister's decision was "devoid of any plausible justification" and that it accordingly be set aside pursuant to that paragraph of the act and the matter remitted to the minister for further consideration. in reaching this decision the court took into account, inter alia, the following matters:  (i) the existence of the statutory declarations and the social worker's letter asserting that there was a normal marriage relationship, the declarants and writer thereof being apparently credible and independent and such documents asserting a conclusion contrary to that formed by the minister and the fact that the minister had not further investigated the statements contained in those documents as he ought to have done.  (ii) that the only matters tending to show lack of intention to live together were the circumstances of the marriage four years earlier and more importantly, interviews by a departmental officer of the applicant and his wife, such interviews containing inconsistencies in their recollection of details in their daily lives, the minister believing that such inconsistencies indicated that the wife did not live with her husband. the interviewing officer should have given the applicant an opportunity to deal with those matters which excited an adverse reaction in the officer before permitting those matters to be used in a manner adverse to the applicant in the decision-making process.  (iii) the interviews which were relied upon by the minister as the primary method of determining the genuineness of the relationship were rushed and short and in any case, neither a verbatim record nor at least contemporaneous notes of the interviews were made and kept, as ought to have been done.  hearing  sydney, 1985, february 5-6, 26.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1020">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1020">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1020">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1020">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1020">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1020" id="cs0">I am satisfied that the two grounds of review raised by the applicants are adequately addressed by applying SZEZI and SZCIA . I also believe it unnecessary to further consider the grounds of review as they bear no relevance to the issues addressed by the Tribunal decision. The approach adopted by Allsop J has also recently been followed in SZIDH v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 262 , by Edmonds J, and in SZKSC v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 210 by Flick J. My attention has also been drawn to SZIGQ  Anor v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 328 at [4] per Downes J which states: These grounds cannot succeed. The facts of this case are quite close to the facts of three unanimous decisions of the Full Court of this Court.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 68">roxborough v rothmans of pall mall australia limited high court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">exclusive distribution agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">statements preceding contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether promissory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">statement that distributor would devote best efforts to distribute products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether warranty or mere representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">term implied by statute that distributor would "use best efforts" to promote products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether further term implied that distributor not to do anything inimical to market for products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">distributor developing own capacity to manufacture principal's products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">orders for principal's products deferred to be met with distributor's products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether breach of best efforts term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">uniform commercial code (u.s.), s. 2-306(2).  trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">distributorship agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">whether fiduciary relationship between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">importation of fiduciary duties into commercial transactions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1984] HCA 64">relevance of terms of contract to existence of fiduciary relationship.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">literal meaning unambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">draftsman's mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">parliament's intention clear from context and legislative history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80b (5), 80c (3).  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">losses of previous years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">holding company and subsidiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">arrangement by continuing shareholder for purpose of enabling company to take previous year's losses into account for deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80, 80b, 80c (3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">goods and services tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">gst treatment where there is a supply of an item which consists of a gst-free element and a taxable element</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">whether one or two supplies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">where a promotional discount is offered in respect of the taxable element or supply whether that discount applies to the taxable element or supply only or whether it should be spread on a proportionate basis across both items and in particular where the taxable element or supply is obtainable at the discounted price only where the gst-free element or supply is taken at the same time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">whether if the taxpayer's view is correct a refund is denied through the operation of section 105</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">65 of the taxation administration act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">where the grant of the refund is discretionary whether the refund should be granted where the competing gst positions result in no change to the total price charged to the relevant customers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">decisions under review set aside in part    a new tax system (goods and services tax) act 1999 ss 7</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">1 , 2 010_22.html#actsec9dash75thegstact">9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">75 , 2 010_22.html#actsec9dash80thegstact">9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">80 , 38</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">45 , 72</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">70 , sch 3 , item 155   taxation administration act 1953 sch 1, s 105</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">65   gstr 2001/8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">citing from="[2010] AATA 22">goods and services tax: apportioning the consideration for a supply that includes taxable and non-taxable parts</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] ATOMTR MT2010/1" id="cs0">MT 2010/1 - Miscellaneous tax: restrictions on GST refunds under section 105-65 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 [2010] ATOMTR MT2010/1 (15 December 2010) MT 2010/1 - Miscellaneous tax: restrictions on GST refunds under section 105-65 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (15 December 2010) @import url("../../ato.css"); [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Australian Taxation Office: Miscellaneous Taxation Rulings [ Index ] [ Search ] [ History ] [ Help ] MT 2010/1 - Miscellaneous tax: restrictions on GST refunds under section 105-65 of Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (15 December 2010) Goods and Services Tax General rules and concepts adjustment events Goods and Services Tax General rules and concepts GST returns MT 2010/1
 MT 2009/D1 ATO references
 ISSN: 1443-5160 NO 1-1USP05I
 Related Rulings/Determinations
 GSTR 2000/19 TR 2006/10
 Subject References
 GST payments; GST refunds; GST returns; GST returns, payments  refunds; GST tax periods;
 Legislation References
 TAA 1953 TAA 1953 3AA(2) TAA 1953 Pt IIB Div 3 TAA 1953 Pt IIB Div 3A TAA 1953 8AAZLF TAA 1953 8AAZN TAA 1953 8AAZN(1) TAA 1953 8AAZN(3) TAA 1953 Pt IVC TAA 1953 14ZR(2) TAA 1953 39 TAA 1953 Pt III Subdiv 2B TAA 1953 Sch 1 Pt 3 - 10 Subdiv 105-C TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-50 TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-55 TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-60 TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65 TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(1) TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(1)(a) TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(1)(b) TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(1)(c) TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(1)(c)(i) TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(1)(c)(ii) TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(2) TAA 1953 Sch 1 105-65(2)(a) ANTS(GST)A 1999 ANTS(GST)A 1999 2-30 ANTS(GST)A 1999 7-1 ANTS(GST)A 1999 7-15 ANTS(GST)A 1999 9-5 ANTS(GST)A 1999 9-10 ANTS(GST)A 1999 11-5 ANTS(GST)A 1999 11-15 ANTS(GST)A 1999 Pt 2 - 3 ANTS(GST)A 1999 Div 17 ANTS(GST)A 1999 17-5 ANTS(GST)A 1999 Div 19 ANTS(GST)A 1999 Div 35 ANTS(GST)A 1999 35-5 ANTS(GST)A 1999 39(3) ANTS(GST)A 1999 48-40(2)(a) ANTS(GST)A 1999 Div 75 ANTS(GST)A 1999 78-50 ANTS(GST)A 1999 84-5 ANTS(GST)A 1999 105-5 ANTS(GST)A 1999 Div 126 ANTS(GST)A 1999 126-5 ANTS(GST)A 1999 162-105 ANTS(GST)A 1999 195-1 ANTS(LCT)A 1999 ANTS(LCT)A 1999 2-10(1) ANTS(LCT)A 1999 2-25 ANTS(LCT)A 1999 5-10 ANTS(LCT)A 1999 13-5 ANTS(LCT)A 1999 17-5 ANTS(WET)A 1999 ANTS(WET)A 1999 2-20 ANTS(WET)A 1999 2-25 ANTS(WET)A 1999 5-1 ANTS(WET)A 1999 5-5 ANTS(WET)A 1999 21-1 ANTS(WET)A 1999 21-5 ANTS(GSTT)A 1999 13 ITAA 1997 995-1 ITAA 1997 995-1(1) Sales Tax Assessment Act (No.1) 1930 26(1) STAA 1992 STAA 1992 51 STAA 1992 51(1) AIA 1901 15AA Crimes Act 1914 21B Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 3) Act 2008
 Case References
 Avon Products Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation [2006] HCA 29 Australian Leisure Marine Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2010] AATA 620 ; 2010 ATC 10-148 Chippendale Printing Company Pty Ltd v. FC of T  Anor 96 ATC 4175 ; (1996) 32 ATR 128 CIC Insurance Ltd v. Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 Commissioner of Taxation v. Hornibrook [2006] FCAFC 170 ; (2006) 156 FCR 313 ; 2006 ATC 4761 ; (2006) 65 ATR 1 Cooper Brooks (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26 ; (1981) 147 CLR 297 ; 81 ATC 4292 ; (1981) 11 ATR 949 Cyanora Snowfox Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation [2010] AATA 137 ; 2010 ATC 10-125 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v. Moorebank Pty Ltd [1988] HCA 29 ; (1988) 165 CLR 55 ; 88 ATC 4443 ; (1988) 19 ATR 1156 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. DB Rreef Funds Management Limited [2006] FCAFC 89 ; 2006 ATC 4282 ; (2006) 62 ATR 699 In re Hepburn: Ex parte Smith (1884) 14 QBD 394 KAP Motors Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 159 ; 2008 ATC 20-007 ; (2008) 68 ATR 927 Luxottica Retail Australia v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2010] AATA 22 ; 2010 ATC 10-119 ; [2010] AATA 22 ; (2010) 75 ATR 169 McAndrew v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1956] HCA 62 ; (1956) 98 CLR 263 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v. Peko-Wallsend Ltd  Ors [1986] HCA 40 ; (1986) 162 CLR 24
 Other References
 Explanatory Memorandum to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 Explanatory Memorandum to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998 Explanatory Memorandum to the A New Tax System (Pay As You Go) Bill 1999 Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008 Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 3) Bill 2008 The Macquarie Dictionary, 2001, rev. 12. Prior to tax periods starting on or after 1 July 2008 section 105-65 did not apply to a GST refund where the overpaid amount was for a transaction that did not give rise to a 'supply' as defined in section 9-10 of the GST Act. This was decided by the Federal Court in Kap Motors Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 159 ; 2008 ATC 20-007 ; (2008) 68 ATR 927 ( Kap Motors). 13. Section 105-65 was amended to overcome this identified deficiency in the law and to cover overpaid amounts involving an arrangement that was treated as giving rise to a taxable supply but which does not give rise to a supply.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 22" id="cs1">Such a process of reiterating prices, values and GST payable has no place in a taxpayer's compliance with GST as a "practical business tax". 59. We also note the comment of Emmett J in KAP Motors Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 159 ; (2008) 168 FCR 319 at [33] :

 Section 105-65 should not be given an expansive construction. While its object may be commendable, in seeking to avoid windfall gains for taxpayers, it is, in a sense, a paternalistic interference with the rights of taxpayers. It proceeds on the basis that GST that should not have been paid has been paid by a taxpayer.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] ATODMTR MT2009/D1" id="cs2">3) Act 2008
 Case References
 Chippendale Printing Company Pty Ltd v. FC of T  Anor 96 ATC 4175 ; (1996) 32 ATR 128 Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v. Younis [1979] 1 NSWLR 444 Commissioner of Taxation v. Hornibrook [2006] FCAFC 170 ; (2006) 156 FCR 313 ; 2006 ATC 4761 ; (2006) 65 ATR 1 David Securities Pty Ltd v. Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1992] HCA 48 ; (1992) 175 CLR 353 ; 24 ATR 125 ; (1992) 92 ATC 4658 Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. DB Rreef Funds Management Limited [2006] FCAFC 89 ; 2006 ATC 4282 ; (2006) 62 ATR 699 Hookway v. Racing Victoria Ltd [2005] VSCA 310 ; [2005] VSCA 310 ; (2005) 13 VR 444 KAP Motors Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 159 ; 2008 ATC 20-007 ; (2008) 68 ATR 927 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v. Peko-Wallsend Ltd  Ors [1986] HCA 40 ; (1986) 162 CLR 24 Tutt v. Doyle (1997) 42 NSWLR 10
 Other References
 Explanatory Memorandum to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998 Explanatory Memorandum to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax Administration) Bill 1998 Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. This was decided by the Federal Court in Kap Motors Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 159 ; 2008 ATC 20-007 ; (2008) 68 ATR 927 ( Kap Motors ).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l1">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l2">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">osland v secretary to the department of justice  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">freedom of information act 1982 (vic), s 50(4) empowered tribunal to decide access should be granted to exempt documents if of opinion that public interest required access to be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">whether, in circumstances of this matter, court of appeal erred in concluding no basis for tribunal to exercise power, when court of appeal did not examine documents.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">legal advice obtained in relation to petition for exercise of prerogative of mercy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] HCA 37">whether issue of press release disclosing existence and effect of advice inconsistent with maintenance of confidentiality in content of advice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">implied waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">issue waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">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="cp1.6">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="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 86">test of waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">where edited version of file note produced in response to subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 125">where objection to producing unedited version taken on grounds of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">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="cp2.4">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="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">waiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">letter conveying substance and effect of legal advice to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">inconsistency between disclosure and confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">waiver imputed where final conclusion of legal advice stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">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="cp3.8">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="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents privileged from production on grounds of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">principles relating to waiver of privilege in documents otherwise exempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">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="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">powers of tribunal under freedom of information act 1982 (cth) s 58</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal empowered to review any decision made by an agency or minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">tribunal stands in shoes of relevant agency or minister for purpose of administrative review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">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="cp3.19">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="cp3.20">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">exempt documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">documents privileged from production on grounds of legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">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="cp3.23">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="cp3.24">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 237">limits upon power of court on appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">esso australia resources limited v the commissioner of taxation  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether test for privilege is "dominant purpose" test or "sole purpose" test.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">client legal privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">test for</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether "dominant purpose or sole purpose".  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">influence on common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">evidence act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">applicable in three australian jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">whether enactments affect development of common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">significance of non-enactment in other jurisdictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1999] HCA 67">relevance (if any) of act to application to review past authority of high court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">mann v carnell  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">loss of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">waiver by disclosure to third party.  australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">separation of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">representative government</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 66">nature of relationship between the act legislative assembly and the act executive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">application to amend patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">whether amendments allowable under s 102(1) and s 102(2) of the patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">claimed invention relates to the form of the compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">whether a real and reasonably clear disclosure of the feature of "individual needles" in the patent specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">discretion under s 105 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">whether court should exercise discretion to refuse amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">whether full and frank disclosure of reasons for amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1019">amendments add new claims but do not delete existing claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 502">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 502">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 502">whether documents attract legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 502">issue waiver</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1019" id="cs0">In reasons given on 30 September 2008, I concluded that Servier had waived privilege on the issue of Mr Hamer's reasons for seeking to amend the AC Patent and advice to and instructions from Servier on that subject ( Apotex Pty Ltd v Les Laboratoires Servier [2008] FCA 1466 ; (2008) 79 IPR 100). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 502" id="cs1">The applicants' submissions may be summarised as follows. First, that it is clear that the common law relating to legal professional privilege applies because this is a pre-trial matter, referring to Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (2005) 144 FCR 379 ; [2005] FCAFC 125 and Apotex Pty Limited v Le Laboratoires Servier (2008) 79 IPR 100 ; [2008] FCA 1466 at [26] as well as Commissioner of Taxation v Rio Tinto Ltd (2006) 151 FCR 341 ; [2006] FCAFC 86 at [43] in particular. The respondents do not demur from this position and I proceed on the basis that the common law applies. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 118 Legal advice</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 122 Loss of client legal privilege: consent and related matters</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l4">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 105 Amendments directed by court</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">szfde v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal") affirmed a decision refusing the appellants' application for protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">the appellants did not attend the tribunal hearing as a result of fraudulent advice given by a purported registered migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether there was fraud "by" or "on" the tribunal.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">inquisitorial process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">distinction between tribunal process and inter partes litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether fraud practised by an agent upon the applicants for a protection visa subverted the operation of div 4 of pt 7 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">whether this fraud led to the jurisdiction of the tribunal remaining constructively unexercised.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">mandamus and certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 35">availability of constitutional writs in cases of fraud.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">whether finding of jurisdictional fact based on probative evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1388">whether div 4 of pt 7 of migration act exhausts common law natural justice hearing rules, or only some of them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">common law agency principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">statutory restrictions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">entitlement to representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">denial of representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">erroneous opinion that legal aid solicitor unable to appear in tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">unexpected denial of representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">failure of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">other factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">failure to provide female interpreter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">refusal to permit appellant to call a witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">errors of interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">solicitor employed by legal aid commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">whether 'official' for purpose of exemption from restrictions on immigration assistance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 30">whether 'member of the public service of a state'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">application for review of decision of refugee review tribunal affirming decision not to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">citizen of china claiming fear of persecution as a falun gong practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">whether tribunal failed to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">whether findings based on illogical or irrational reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">whether tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">inconsistency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">merits review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1521">no jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1521" id="cs0">As to the procedural fairness ground, Mr Markus submitted that s.422B of the Migration Act applies in respect of procedural fairness, referring to SZEQH v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [21] at [27]-[31], where Dowsett J considered the operation of the section. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 51A Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 416 Only new information to be considered in later applications for review</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 420 Refugee Review Tribunal's way of operating</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426 Applicant may request Refugee Review Tribunal to call witnesses</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 437 Restrictions on disclosure of certain information etc.</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 438 Refugee Review Tribunal's discretion in relation to disclosure of certain information etc.</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant exclusive dealer of mobile phone services for respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">respondent claims that commissions paid to applicant exceeded "cap" as specified in written dealership agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">notice issued by respondent requiring repayment of alleged overpayment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant claims respondent gave oral assurance in pre-contractual negotiations that "cap" would not be enforced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">applicant further claims amount of overpayment miscalculated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">application for interlocutory injunction restraining respondent from requiring applicant to pay amount of alleged overpayment or treating failure to pay as grounds for termination of dealership agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">claim in promissory estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">claim for breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether either claim gives rise to a serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether balance of convenience favours grant of interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1365">whether discretionary factors operate to prevent such relief being granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] VSC 343">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] VSC 343">whether use of a fourfold colour scheme by the defendant is likely to mislead or deceive consumers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] VSC 343">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] VSC 343">whether a prima facie case for relief is shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2011] VSC 343">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2011] VSC 343">interlocutory injunction refused.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] VSC 343" id="cs0">

 38 Mitre 10 claims that these circumstances are very clearly analogous to those in which an interlocutory injunction was granted in favour of Clark Rubber by Goldberg J in Intellectual Property Pty Ltd v Mygroups Pty Ltd. [9] In that case, Goldberg J restrained an operator of a foam-rubber product store in Victoria from trading whilst the store's exterior was painted in bright yellow, with red and blue lettering for signage. That was the same combination of colours used by Clark Rubber on its stores selling the same or similar products. The evidence was that Clark Rubber had 70 stores Australia-wide, 65 of which used that colour scheme. It had traded in Australia for 60 years. The selection of colours was accepted by his Honour to be, rather than functional or utilitarian, idiosyncratic. His Honour accepted that on the evidence in that case there was a serious question to be tried that:

 ... the Clark Rubber colour scheme is quite distinctive and that it creates a strong impression with consumers who view it independently of the name 'Clark Rubber'. [10] </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 53 False representations.</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l5">Fair Trading Act 1999 - SECT 9 Application of Australian Consumer Law</title>
<title id="l6">Fair Trading Act 1999 - SECT 12 Interpretation of Australian Consumer Law</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">requirements for proper commencement of suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">necessity to establish that applicant is authorised by all the persons in the native title claim group to make the subject applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">applications failed to establish either individual authorisation or authorisation in accordance with customary law or traditional practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">application by another group member to be a replacement applicant failed because of inability to prove his application was authorised by the claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">principal proceedings not well commenced and foredoomed to failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">proceeding dismissed as abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">claimant application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">registration of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">criteria for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">sufficiency of asserted factual basis for native title rights and interests claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">relationship to statutory requirements for contents of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">review of registrar's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">nature of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">appeal against review decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">whether unduly onerous standard applied by reference to sufficiency of evidence in support of application  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 157">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">registration of native title claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">application for review of native title registrar's decision refusing registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">whether registrar erred in making decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 574">proper construction of registrar's function under s 190c(4)(b) of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">registration of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">authorisation of a number of persons to act as an applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">whether native title registrar correct in deciding not to accept amended application for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">effect of resolutions passed at authorisation meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">withdrawal of members of the applicant after authorisation meeting but before registration of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">whether further authorisation meeting required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">proper interpretation of ' the applicant ' in s 61(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">application of the merits test in s 190b  relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">appropriate relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">registration of rights on native title registrar under s 186(1)(g)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">whether appropriate for native title registrar to revoke decision  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">whether appropriate for court to exercise its discretion to make an order for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">whether actions of registrar unreasonable in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">citing from="[2007] FCA 192">whether registrar unreasonably maintained his position</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 157" id="cs0">89 In Wakaman People No 2 v Native Title Registrar [2006] FCA 1198 ; (2006) 155 FCR 107 , Kiefel J applied the reasoning of the Full Court in Strickland [2000] FCA 652 ; 99 FCR 33 and characterised it thus (at [29]):
 The legislation does not specify the nature or the extent of the Court's review under s 190D(3) or impose any limitation upon the material that may be taken into account. Jurisdiction is conferred by s 190D(2) and (3) in the broadest of terms (at [64]). A review under s 190D is not restricted to considerations and determination of a question of law. Section 190D(4) makes it plain that the review extends to determinations of issues of fact. The NTA does not proceed upon the premise that determinations of fact in the relevant controversy have been settled by the administrative determination and that the only matter in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court is any controversy on questions of law.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 574" id="cs1">31 However while Doepel may be authority that, for the purposes of section 190C (2), the Registrar is not required to look beyond the terms of the application (cf Wakaman People No 2 v Native Title Registrar [2006] FCA 1198 ; (2006) 155 FCR 107 at 118), it does not necessarily follow that the same principle applies to the satisfaction required of the Registrar or his delegate by s 190C (4)(b). Indeed in the Wiri #2 Application, although the delegate was not satisfied as required by s 190C (4)(b), after considering each of the requirements of ss 61 and 62 the delegate was satisfied that the Application contained all the details and other information required by those sections, and accordingly complied with s 190C (2). With specific reference to the native title claim group, the delegate observed :
 There is nothing on the face of the description of the persons in the native title claim group to indicate that not all persons in the native title claim group are included in the description or that it is in fact a sub-group of the native title claim group for the area of the application. Having said that, I do have regard to information elsewhere before me in relation to this issue in my consideration of the authorisation condition under s. 190C (4)(b). But with the authority of Doepel in mind, I do not consider this information under this condition... </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 192" id="cs2">98 Kiefel J in Wakaman People #2 v Native Title Registrar and Authorised Delegate [2006] FCA 1198 at par 29:

 'In [Western Australia v Strickland [2000] FCA 652 ; (2000) 99 FCR 33] the Full Court held that the power given by s 190A to the Registrar by the NTA to make decisions in respect of the registration of an application made to the Court is the exercise of an administrative power in respect of a matter in which the Court is exercising jurisdiction. The legislation does not specify the nature or the extent of the Court's review under s 190D(3) or impose any limitation upon the material that may be taken into account. Jurisdiction is conferred by s 190D(2) and (3) in the broadest of terms. A review under s 190D is not restricted to considerations and determination of a question of law. Section 190D(4) makes it plain that the review extends to determinations of issues of fact. The NTA does not proceed upon the premise that determinations of fact in the relevant controversy have been settled by the administrative determination and that the only matter in respect of which jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court is any controversy on questions of law. The Honours said that ' the review proceeding enlivens the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of the whole matter ' ... Their Honours concluded that it was Parliament's intention that the right of review would place before the Court the controversy constituted by the issues of fact and law raised between the parties and that, upon a ground of review being established, appropriate orders may be made to do justice as between parties. '

45 In Wakaman People # 2 v Native Title Registrar and Authorised Delegate [2006] FCA 1198 , Kiefel J summarised the Court's powers and functions, and said at par 29:

 'Whilst the applicant's case for review is based upon the identification of an error on the part of the delegate, it is not submitted that the Court is limited to a review based upon questions of law. The intervenor does not argue against that contention, given the decision of the Full Court in Western Australia v Strickland [2000] FCA 652 ; (2000) 99 FCR 33. I had previously expressed a view different to that in Strickland (in Powder v Registrar, National Native Title Tribunal [1999] FCA 913 ; (1999) 92 FCR 454) but consider that I am now bound by the decision of the Full Court.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 62 Information etc. in relation to certain applications</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 63 Reference of applications to Native Title Registrar</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 84A Intervention by Commonwealth Minister</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 99 Delegation by Registrar</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190A Registrar to consider claims</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190B Registration: conditions about merits of the claim</title>
<title id="l8">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190C Registration: conditions about procedural and other matters</title>
<title id="l9">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 251B Authorising the making of applications</title>
<title id="l10">NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT ACT 1998 </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 30 General powers of Courts in bankruptcy</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 77 Duties of bankrupt as to discovery etc. of property</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>