Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">veterans' appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">widow's pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">operational service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">kind of death</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">hypothesis raised that kind of death was cardio-respiratory failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">kind of death determined to be non-hodgkin's lymphoma</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">statement of principles (sop) not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] AATA 348">decision affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 38">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 38">unnecessary appeal papers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 38">obligation to cooperate in the preparation of appeal index so as to avoid unnecessary costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">formulation of question of law.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">meaning of improper discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether unequal treatment of equals only involves discrimination when it is not the product of a distinction which is appropriate and adapted to the attainment of a proper objective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether improper discrimination involves only discrimination against a person and not discrimination between persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">discrimination related to the age of a person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">discrimination related to the amount or extent of benefits to which a person becomes or has become entitled during a period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether loyalty benefit scheme requiring a contributor to attain the age of 65 years before he or she can utilise the scheme's benefits constitutes improper discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 34">whether loyalty benefit scheme providing for benefits to be calculated by reference to the level of claims made for ancillary benefits by the contributor constitutes improper discrimination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions of law invite broad enquiry as to the construction and operation of statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions seek to characterise a question of fact as a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions invite court to examine evidence and other material before the tribunal and conduct a rehearing on aspects of the controversy determined by the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether convenient to make for court to make findings of fact under s 44(7).  workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">meaning of 'injury' under commonwealth employees' compensation act 1930 (cth) and compensation (commonwealth government employees) act 1971 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether mere experiencing of event or condition necessary for development of a disease contracted by gradual process constitutes 'injury'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">s 101(2)(a) of commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether inchoate or contingent liabilities in respect of a disease contracted by gradual process transferred to administering authorities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">interaction of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) and veterans' entitlements act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">whether compensation payable in relation to service of defence force member where provision made for the payment of pension.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">reasons of tribunal to be adequately explained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">reasons of the tribunal to be read in a balanced and fair manner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">findings of fact  veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">reasonable hypothesis incapacity is war-caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">need for satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt that hypothesis is to be rejected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">entitlement to special rate of pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1044">substantial cause of incapacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">financial disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">application for financial disclosure exemption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">whether unreasonable burden</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">balancing exercise between benefits to public from disclosure and burdens imposed on the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">consideration of whether there is an actual link between compliance and detriment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">mere potential for something to occur is not an unreasonable burden</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 806">tribunal properly assessed that dynamic had established the possibility that anti-competitive consequences would result from compliance rather than the reasonable prospect or likelihood of that consequence occurring.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">veteran's entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">widow's pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">decision of administrative appeals tribunal that veteran's death was "war-caused"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">appeal allowed and matter remitted to tribunal for determination according to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">whether primary judge erred in interpreting ss 5 d and 120a of veterans' entitlements act 1986 (cth) by concluding that neither "heart failure" nor "kidney failure" was capable of constituting a "kind of death" under that act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">primary judge correctly concluded that the tribunal erred in law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">tribunal failed to determine why the veteran's heart failed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">tribunal failed to identify the cause or causes of the veteran's death practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">no cross-appeal or notice of contention filed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">whether respondent entitled to raise cross-appeal at hearing, that primary judge ought to have dismissed the matter rather than remit to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">notice of appeal at first instance sought order that matter be remitted to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 91">no error by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">veteran's entitlements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">widow's pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">decision of administrative appeals tribunal that veteran's death was not "war-caused"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">appeal dismissed by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">tribunal found that the cause of death was pulmonary embolism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">widow accepted that pulmonary embolism was not war-caused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">tribunal found that ischaemic heart disease was not a cause of death, but that the death would not have occurred as and when it did but for ischaemic heart disease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 90">whether if a medical condition contributes to the death of a veteran only by affecting its timing, it is an error of law on the part of the tribunal to conclude that for the purposes of the veterans' entitlements act 1986 (cth), the cause of death does not include that medical condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 345">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 345">leave to appeal from dismissal of an appeal from a decision of the administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 345">need for an arguable case of error of law.   appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 345">application for an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 345">interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 345">leave to appeal also required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 345">test to be applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">cabinet documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">document prepared for purpose of submission to cabinet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">internal working documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">findings of fact made by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 188">no question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">whether either s 160 or s 163 of the evidence act 1995 creates a presumption of receipt of notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">misapprehension as to correct law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">what constitutes "effective service" under s 28a of the acts interpretation act 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">what constitutes the giving of written notice in accordance with s 155aa of the veterans' entitlements act 1986 (cth)  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">appeal under s 44(1) of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">whether notice of appeal complies with the requirements of order 53 rule 3 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1858">what constitutes a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">decision of administrative appeals tribunal setting aside two reviewable decisions under safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether tribunal made findings of fact in support of which there was no evidence or forgot or ignored evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal did not make findings of fact in support of which there was no evidence or forget evidence in relation to first reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether tribunal failed to consider submissions of substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal not obliged to refer to every aspect of evidence or submissions supporting its view</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether compensable injuries found were properly the subject of a claim under the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act or properly considered to be the same injury as that originally notified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal did not explain how additional conditions arose out of claimed injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal accepted respondent no longer suffered from effects of injury as originally notified and claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal did not give sufficient reasons for decision that compensable injuries were related to claimed injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal failed to consider important alternative explanation in relation to second reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">finding of material fact for which there was no evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">both reviewable decisions to be remitted to tribunal administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">applicant appeals under s 44 of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth), s 5 of administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) and s 39b of judiciary act 1903 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">grounds of appeal same</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether court has jurisdiction under both applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether judicial review be limited to question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether court should exercise discretion to restrict to questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">comcare v etheridge (2006) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">applications heard simultaneously</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">child support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">appeal from decision of ssat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">nature of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">need to identify question of law raised by appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">connection between question of law and orders sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">discerning error of law from tribunal's reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">relief discretionary. child support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">appeal from decision of ssat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">form of notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">requirement to specify "grounds of appeal"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">what "grounds of appeal" should address. child support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">appeal from decision of ssat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">power of court to make findings of fact and to admit evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">whether court should hear and determine matter when ssat through legal error gave no consideration to merits of review application. child support</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">appeal from decision of ssat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">statutory time limit for appeal as fixed by rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">hiatus in rules fixing time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">appealable decision made during hiatus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">rule subsequently made fixing time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">rule having effect of rendering any appeal by appellant thereafter out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">appellant subsequently appealing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">citing from="[2007] FMCAfam 712">whether rule fixing time limit applies to appellant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 877">social security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 877">appeal from decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 877">pension entitlement for dependent spouse of veteran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 877">alcoholism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 877">whether reasonable hypothesis connecting veteran's death and service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 877">application of principles relevant to analysis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 877">error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">widow's pension claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">reasonable hypothesis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">cause of death cerebral tumour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">contributing cause bronchopneumonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">service-related cigarette smoking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">possibility of chronic bronchitis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">diagnosis of bronchial asthma</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2006] AATA 974">kind of death</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">veterans' affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">remittal from federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">application by widow of new guinea veteran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">deceased killed in course of employment when vehicle being driven struck by a train</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">whether impairment of concentration because he was a chronic alcoholic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">applicant submitted sop did not apply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">"kind of death" was death by road accident</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">s120a(4) asserted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">reasonableness of hypothesis to be determined by law prevailing before 1994 amendments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">whether a sop must be satisfied to support the hypothesis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2006] AATA 905">decision under review set aside</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1044" id="cs0">Appl'd: Kowalski v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2010] FCAFC 10 at [39] , [2010] FCAFC 10 ; 114 ALD 8 at 20 per Marshall, Tracey and Foster JJ; Price Street Professional Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCAFC 154 at [36], 67 ATR 555 per Edmonds J. Questions which are prefaced with the words " did the AAT err in law... " are, similarly, not questions of law: Seymour v The Migration Agents Registration Authority [2007] FCAFC 76 at [7] , [2007] FCAFC 76 ; 45 AAR 370. The requirement to state " briefly, but specifically, the grounds relied upon " calls for a " brief statement explaining why the answer to the question (or questions) of law will lead to the making of the order sought ": Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 at [7] per Branson J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 806" id="cs1">It is also necessary to bear in mind that this Court has no jurisdiction on an appeal limited to a question of law, as this is, to evaluate the evidence before the Tribunal (see Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 at [7] per Branson J), nor does it have jurisdiction to review the merits of the Tribunal's decision: see Wu Shan Liang at 272. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 91" id="cs2">25 Hence, the "kind of death" in terms of ss 120A(2) and (4) is also one which refers to the medical cause or causes of death (see eg per Selway J in Hancock at [8]-[9]; per Gordon J in Codd at [36]-[39]; per Spender, Tamberlin and Kenny JJ in Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136 at [34] ; per Moore, Emmett and Allsop JJ in Benjamin at [53]-[54]; per Branson J in Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 at [22] - [33]; and per Tamberlin J in Repatriation Commission v Towns [2003] FCA 1262 ; (2003) 38 AAR 77 at 86-7). The decision about the "kind of death" is also not made by applying ss 120 or 120A or any Statement of Principles under s 196B(2) of the VE Act. It is made independently of them. Once it is made, then for the purpose of deciding whether the "kind of death" is war-caused, in accordance with the Deledio principles, those provisions and any relevant Statement of Principles are to be applied.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 90" id="cs3">47 Hence, the "kind of death" in terms of ss 120A(2) and (4) is also one which refers to the medical cause or causes of death (see eg per Selway J in Hancock at [8]-[9]; per Gordon J in Codd at [36]-[39]; per Spender, Tamberlin and Kenny JJ in Fogarty v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 136 at [34] ; per Moore, Emmett and Allsop JJ in Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879 ; (2001) 70 ALD 622 at [53] - [54]; per Branson J in Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 at [22] - [33]; and Per Tamberlin J in Repatriation Commission v Towns [2003] FCA 1262 ; (2003) 38 AAR 77 at 86-7). The decision about the "kind of death" is also not made by applying ss 120 or 120A or any Statement of Principles under s 196B(2) of the VE Act. It is made independently of them. Once it is made, then for the purpose of deciding whether the "kind of death" is war-caused, in accordance with the Deledio principles, those provisions and any relevant Statement of Principles are to be applied.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 345" id="cs4">Many decisions of this Court have emphasised the necessity to respect and comply with this requirement (see e.g. Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2003] FCAFC 232 ; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ("Etheridge") ; Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 38 ; (2006) 150 FCR 48 ; Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 ("Brown") and Colby Corporation Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCAFC 10 ; (2008) 165 FCR 133 ( "Colby" )). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 188" id="cs5">77 The appeal faces a further difficulty. In a number of recent cases in this Court the jurisdictional limitation upon appeals under s 44 has been emphasised (see Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investment Commission [2003] FCAFC 232 ; Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ('Etheridge') ; Purvis v Dairy Adjustment Authority (No 2) [2006] FCAFC 38 ; (2006) 150 FCR 48 ; Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 ('Brown') and Colby . Identification of a question of law is not only a fundamental prerequisite but, as many authorities confirm, a question of law so identified is the subject matter of the appeal. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1858" id="cs6">12 In addition to this summary, the following principles, stated in various other decisions, are relevant to this decision: the jurisdiction of this Court is dependent upon a question of law being identified: Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 at [7] ; these requirements (above) are applied strictly: Lambe v Director-General of Social Services [1981] FCA 171 ; (1981) 4 ALD 362 at 264 and Bishop v Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2008] FCA 1118 at [5] ; on an appeal of this kind, this Court should proceed with restraint and not inflate questions of fact into questions of law: Blackwood Hodge (Aust) Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs (NSW) [No 2] [1980] FCA 96 ; (1980) 3 ALD 38 at 50, Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Swift [1989] FCA 413 ; (1989) 18 ALD 679 at 693 and Politis v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 16 ALD 707 at 708; and the reasons of the Tribunal should not be read over zealously, or with a keen eye for error: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Laing [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 and 291.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 236" id="cs7">99 Justice Branson pointed out at [27] and [30] in Etheridge that judicial review under s 5(1) of the ADJR Act is also available for Tribunal decisions under the SRC Act where such an application is made. In Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 Branson J referred at [8] to the fact that the ADJR Act provided an alternative source of jurisdiction to the AAT Act. In Barry Branson J made orders under s 5 of the ADJR Act for errors of law when it was not clear that the Court's jurisdiction under s 44(1) of the AAT Act was properly invoked. Mr Sellick argues that her Honour's comments in Etheridge and Brown are obiter and that Ms Barry was unrepresented so that no submissions on jurisdiction under the ADJR Act were made.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCAfam 712" id="cs8">33. Thus, of relevance to s.110B appeals in my view are cases on s.44 appeals in relation to:

 • what is a "question of law" (for example, Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 456; [1993] FCA 456 ; (1993) 43 FCR 280 at 287; Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd (1996) 196 CLR 389 at 394-399; Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCAFC 192 at [59] , [2002] FCAFC 192 ; (2002) 69 ALD 581 ; Clements v Independent Indigenous Advisory Committee [2003] FCAFC 143 at [6] --- [8], [2003] FCAFC 143 ; (2003) 131 FCR 28 , 37 AAR 309) ; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 244 at [45] and [46] per Branson J, [2003] FCAFC 244 ; (2003) 202 ALR 450 , 47 ACSR 649 ; Hartnett v Migration Agents Registration Authority [2004] FCA 50 at [50] )
 • the centrality to the appeal on a question of law and its impact on the nature of the proceedings (for example, Birdseye above at [10] to [22] per Branson and Stone JJ [2003] FCAFC 232 ; , (2003) 76 ALD 321 , 38 AAR 55: Saxby Bridge , above, at [107] per Jacobsen and Bennett JJ; Comcare v Etheridge above at [13] and [14] per Branson J, with whom Spender and Nicholson JJ agreed; Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 at [7] );
 • the necessary connection between the question of law raised on an appeal and the relief sought (for example, Birdseye , above, at [18] per Branson and Stone JJ; Saxby Bridge , above, at [47] per Branson J).

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 877" id="cs9">42 Despite the respondent's submissions to the contrary, the decision of Tamberlin J in Repatriation Commission v Towns [2003] FCA 1262 ; (2003) 38 AAR 77 does not assist the respondent's case. The decision must be understood having regard to the matters that were in issue in the case. In Towns , there was consensus that there was no relevant SoP and so it was unnecessary to make any analysis of the kind of death met by the veteran: at [28]. It would be wrong, then, to take what was said in that case as supporting or establishing the general proposition that the expression " kind of death " was not concerned with medical causation where the medical cause or causes can be identified. Likewise, the decision of Branson J in Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 makes plain that the decision in that case was not the occasion to provide general and definitive guidance about the meaning of the expression.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] NFSC 6" id="cs10">There is a distinction between an appeal "on a question of law", as required by s 34(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act , and an appeal that merely involves a question of law. The former is a narrower expression. It involves what has been described as "a pure question of law". A mixed question of fact and law is not a question of law within the meaning of s 34(1). See generally Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27 ; (2006) 149 FCR 522 at [16] . See also Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd [2003] FCAFC 244 ; (2003) 133 FCR 290 at [47] ---[48] per Branson J, and at [107]---[108] per Jacobson and Bennett JJ; and Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 at [7] per Branson J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 947" id="cs11">25 Finally in Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 , Branson J said at [7]:

 ...The Court has no jurisdiction on such an appeal to evaluate the evidence before the Tribunal. Order 53 r 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules (and see also Form 55A) requires the notice of appeal to state separately the question or questions of law to be raised on the appeal, the order sought and the grounds relied upon in support of the order sought. This final requirement calls for a brief statement explaining why the answer to the question (or questions) of law will lead to the making of the order sought. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] AATA 974" id="cs12">He said he relied on Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 and Parkes v Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 818 , both of which considered the term operative cause of death.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] AATA 905" id="cs13">Recently Branson J in Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914 said that the concept of "kind of death" had been considered in Hancock and Towns but "The Court has not yet sought to provide definitive guidance on the meaning of 'kind of death' .</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">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l4">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l5">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 6A Operational service--world wars</title>
<title id="l6">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 120 Standard of proof</title>
<title id="l7">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 120A Reasonableness of hypothesis to be assessed by reference to Statement of Principles</title>
<title id="l8">VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 - SECT 196B Functions of Authority</title>
<title id="l9">VETERANS' AFFAIRS (1994-95 BUDGET MEASURES) LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 1994 </title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">vasiljkovic v commonwealth of australia  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">plaintiff remanded in custody pending determination of eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">arrest warrant for plaintiff in force in croatia on charge of certain war crimes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">arrest warrant constitutes relevant "supporting documentation" for purposes of s 19 of the extradition act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">statement made by croatian investigating authorities of a well-founded suspicion that plaintiff committed the offences alleged, including recitation of evidence provided by witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">croatia declared to be an "extradition country" by extradition (croatia) regulations 2004 (cth), regs 3, 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act is a valid law of the commonwealth.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">plaintiff detained pending determination of eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition act , s 19(1) provided power of an administrative nature to conduct proceedings to determine eligibility for surrender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition act , s 19(5) provided that the person to whom the proceedings relate is not entitled to adduce evidence to contradict allegations that the person has engaged in the conduct constituting an extradition offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">no prima facie evidence requirement applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act is invalid to the extent that it purports to confer a power to deprive an australian citizen of liberty otherwise than in exercise of the judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act when read together with the extradition (croatia) regulations is invalid to the extent that it purports to confer a power to deprive an australian citizen of liberty otherwise than upon a finding that there exists a prima facie case against that person of the commission of the offences alleged by the state requesting extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether law authorising such involuntary detention requires machinery for testing the validity of the charges made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether surrender proceedings are an integer of a "matter" for the purposes of ch iii of the constitution .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">external affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">extradition (croatia) regulations not made pursuant to any treaty between australia and croatia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether, in the absence of a treaty, the declaration by the extradition (croatia) regulations of croatia as an extradition country is invalid for want of support by s 51(xxix) of the constitution or any other legislative power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether pt ii of the extradition act and the extradition (croatia) regulations operate by reference to the conduct of the plaintiff external to australia or by reference to an untested and untestable allegation of such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 40">whether the mere fact of a request by a foreign state makes the subject-matter of the request amenable to the exercise of the legislative power conferred by s 51(xxix).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">appeal against determination that appellant eligible for surrender under s 21 extradition act 1988 (cth) for conspiracy and copyright infringement offences extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether supporting document requirements of s 19(3) complied with</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether agreement constituting offence of conspiracy reasonably identifiable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">nature and proof of conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether offence of direct copyright infringement identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether necessary to identify evidence establishing australian copyright and infringement  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether double criminality requirement of s 19(2) satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">copyright infringement in the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether necessary to show works would attract copyright protection in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">nature of and proper approach to double criminality requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">appellant physically located in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether appellant's conduct should be transposed to united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">character of conduct constituting the offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 34">whether possible to infer that prejudice element in s 132(2)(b) of copyright act 1968 (cth) made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">truong v the queen  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">extradition to australia from other countries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">extradition act 1988 (cth), pt iv (ss 40</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">44 )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">speciality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">offences for which extraditable person surrendered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">request for extradition for offences including murder, kidnapping, conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to kidnap</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">appellant surrendered to australia in relation to conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to kidnap</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">appellant charged and tried in supreme court of victoria for murder and kidnapping</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">whether offences of murder and kidnapping were offences of which the appellant could be convicted on proof of the conduct constituting the offences of conspiracy to commit murder and conspiracy to kidnap.  extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">speciality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">speciality arrangement between australia and the united kingdom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">speciality arrangement under extradition act 1989 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">whether breach of speciality arrangement.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">jurisdiction of the supreme court of victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">extraditable person "shall not ... be ... tried in australia" for any offence other than any offence in respect of which the person was surrendered or "any other offence ... of which the person could be convicted on proof of the conduct constituting any such offence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">whether trial of appellant for offences of murder and kidnapping beyond the jurisdiction of the supreme court of victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">whether prohibition of trial for offences (other than offence for which extradited and offence of which the extraditable person could be convicted on proof of the conduct constituting the extradition offence) founded special plea to the arraignment or withdrew jurisdiction from court over the trial for the offence for which the extraditable person "shall not be tried"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">whether trial of offence for which the extraditable person "shall not be tried" a miscarriage of justice.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">murder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">kidnapping</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">conspiracy to murder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2004] HCA 10">conspiracy to kidnap.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">extradition (foreign states) act 1966 and extradition (federal republic of germany) regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">requisition by the federal republic of germany for the surrender of the appellant as a fugitive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">application to review the decision of magistrate to commit the appellant to prison</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">sub-ss. 4 (3) and 17 (6) of the extradition (foreign states) act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">requirements of the requisition in respect of a person convicted in absentia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">whether requisition must seek return of fugitive for trial rather than to serve his sentence on conviction in absentia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">whether a person has been convicted in his absence within the sense of sub-s. 4 (3) where the absence of that person is the consequence of conduct constituting the voluntary waiver of a right to be present</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">effect of the "deeming" provision in sub-s. 4 (3) on the requirements of the requisition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">requirements (b) and (c) in sub-s. 17 (6) (a) (i)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">meaning of those requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">expression "all the acts or omissions in respect of which the surrender . . . is requested".  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">extradition (foreign states) act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">availability of review under adjr act in cases where review is available under extradition act.  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">whether the principles of res judicata, issue estoppel and the equitable estoppel deriving from henderson v henderson operate upon the exercise by a magistrate of functions under s. 17 of the extradition (foreign states) act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">whether those functions are judicial or administrative in character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">effect of order for discharge of a fugitive under sub-s. 17 (6) (d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">lack of finality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1988] FCA 450">observations on the application of doctrines of estoppel and "abuse of process" in federal administrative law.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1486">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1486">bail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1486">jurisdiction and power of the federal court to grant bail in extradition proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1486">special circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1486">grounds of potential application for review not strong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">alleged failure to disclose documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">relevance of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">where applicant subject of extradition proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">high court special leave application pending.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">principles applicable in federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">relevance of documents.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">joinder of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">application to join the prime minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">proper parties in relation to an application to review a migration decision.  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">citing from="[2010] FMCA 345">employer nomination (residence) visa.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 184">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 184">appeal from decision of primary judge determining that the applicant is eligible for surrender within the meaning of s 19(2) of the extradition act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 184">whether supporting documents constitute a duly authenticated statement in writing setting out the conduct constituting the offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 184">whether alleged conduct constitutes an extradition offence in western australia evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 184">inferences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 184">the extent to which it is appropriate to draw inferences from the material relied upon in the supporting documents crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 184">width of expression 'any fraudulent means' in criminal code (wa), s 409</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 111">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 111">extradition sought of serbian to the republic of croatia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 111">extradition opposed on basis of an extradition objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 111">prejudice claimed ' at trial '</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 111">punished or detained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 111">a mitigating factor in sentence unavailable to the person by reason of political opinions</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1486" id="cs0">In O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCA 618 the process was described by Barker J in the following paragraphs:

 11 On 5 January 2005, the Hon Philip Maxwell Ruddock MP, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Australia signed a Notice of Receipt of Extradition Request (Notice) under the Act addressed to the Magistrate before whom the person named in the Notice is brought. That Notice was issued by the Attorney General under subs 16(1) of the Act and stated that an extradition request had been received from Ireland in relation to the applicant for the following extradition offences:

 8 counts of obtaining property by false pretences contrary to s 32(1) of the Larceny Act 1916 (Ireland). 8 counts of the alternative charge of fraudulent conversion contrary to s 20(1)(iv)(a) of the Larceny Act 1916 (Ireland);

 12 The Extradition (Ireland) Regulations made 13 March 1989 by reg 5 provides that the Act applies in relation to Ireland subject to the Treaty on Extradition (Treaty) between Australia and Ireland done at Dublin on 2 September 1985 (being the treaty a copy of the text of which is set out in the Schedule). Further, even if the Court was to conclude that the notice issued by the Attorney-General under s 16(1) of the Extradition Act on 5 January 2005 was issued before he had received an extradition request from the Republic of Ireland, the Court would have no power to order that the committal order made by Magistrate Calder be set aside. Such an order would be inconsistent with the order made by his Honour Barker J in O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCA 618 that '[t]he Court determines that [the appellant] is eligible for surrender, within the meaning of subs 19(2) of the Extradition Act ...', and the dismissal of the appellant's appeal against that order by the Full Court in O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCAFC 184.  Moreover, these issues were exhaustively ventilated in O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCA 618 which, in turn, was upheld on review in the Full Court in O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCAFC 184. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 345" id="cs1">Mr O'Donoghue's Application does not seek an adjournment of the proceedings. The affidavit filed on 11 January 2010 by Mr O'Donoghue [40] did inform the Court that he was being held in remand at Hakea Prison, pending the determination of extradition proceedings commenced against him by the Republic of Ireland, and that an application had been made by him to the High Court for special leave to appeal in those proceedings. [41] There is no dispute about those facts. Affidavit in support of application for adjournment --- 27 January 2010
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 184" id="cs2">2 On 9 June 2009 the primary judge determined that Mr O'Donoghue was eligible for surrender in relation to extradition offences within the meaning of s 19(2) of the Extradition Act 1988 (Cth) ( the Act ): O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCA 618. Those offences were eight counts of fraudulent conversion contrary to s 20(1)(iv)(a) of the Larceny Act 1916 (Ireland) ( the Larceny Act ), alternatively, eight counts of obtaining property by false pretences contrary to s 32(1) of the Larceny Act.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 111" id="cs3">13 ' Although the extradition of fugitive offenders is an executive act, it requires statutory authority ' which ' cannot be exercised "except in accordance with the laws which prescribe in detail the precautions to be taken to prevent unwarrantable interference with individual liberty" ': Vasiljkovic 227 CLR at 618 per Gleeson CJ, citing Brown v Lizars [1905] HCA 24 ; (1905) 2 CLR 837 at 852 per Griffith CJ. See also 227 CLR at 629 to 630. There is thus a need for what is said to be strict compliance with the formalities required by the Act: Prabowo v Republic of Indonesia (1995) 61 FCR 258 at 270 to 271 per Hill J; Timar v Republic of Hungary [1999] FCA 1518 at [62] per Weinberg J; Cabal v United Mexican States (No 3) [2000] FCA 1204 ; (2000) 186 ALR 188 at 240 per French J; O'Donoghue v Ireland [2009] FCA 618 at [68] per Barker J. There is no room for any presumption in favour of the executive where the liberty of a subject is concerned: Schlieske v Federal Republic of Germany (1987) 14 FCR 424 at 432 per Fox, Wilcox and Burchett JJ.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 3 Principal objects of Act</title>
<title id="l2">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 10 Interpretative provisions relating to offences</title>
<title id="l3">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 12 Provisional arrest warrants</title>
<title id="l4">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Determination of eligibility for surrender</title>
<title id="l5">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 21 Review of magistrate's order</title>
<title id="l6">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 22 Surrender determination by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">wasted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">liability of applicant's solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">advancing case and raising constitutional challenge known, or ought reasonably to be known, not to be seriously arguable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">conduct unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">additional costs incurred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">o 62 r 9(1)(c) of federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 199">s 43 of federal court act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">decisions under administrative legal aid scheme relating to public interest and test cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">scheme non-statutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">decisions under the scheme not decisions under any enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">judicial review unavailable under adjr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">no public duty attracting the grant of mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">question of review of executive power not canvassed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">poor quality of application and submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1867">solicitor to show cause why costs should not be awarded personally against him.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">legal profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">whether costs order properly made against solicitor pursuant to s 198m legal profession act 1987</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">whether case that solicitor provided legal services on a claim for damages without reasonable prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">failure to give full and sufficient notice of basis on which costs order might be made against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">failure to give full and sufficient opportunity to respond to question whether costs order should be made to have regard to principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">mode of making s 198 m costs application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">procedure devised to deal with question whether a s 198m order should be made should have regard to principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">judicial officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">exercise of judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">obligation to give reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 153">construction of part 11 , division 5c of the legal professional act 1987</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">where any extant causes of action vested in applicant's trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether proceedings commenced or continued in circumstances where the applicant should have known he had no chance of success  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">duty to court not to initiate or continue an action unreasonably where it has no chance of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">where limited instructions and evidence to support actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether dereliction of duty by solicitor for applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether proceedings initiated or continued unreasonably</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">whether solicitor for the applicant should be jointly liable for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 104">solicitor liable with respect to one of the claims courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether costs should be awarded against solicitor for unsuccessful applicant in favour of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">solicitor instituted and maintained on instructions proceedings which had little or no prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether institution and maintenance on instructions of proceedings with no prospects of success warrants order for costs against solicitor legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether costs should be awarded against solicitor for unsuccessful applicant in favour of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">solicitor instituted and maintained on instructions proceedings which had little or no prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 18">whether institution and maintenance on instructions of proceedings with no prospects of success warrants order for costs against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">denial of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">void/voidable decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">discretion to set aside decision.  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">legal disciplinary authorities and proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">legal services commission of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">allegations of professional misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">commissioner's decision to institute proceedings against practitioner before legal services tribunal in contravention of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">consequences of contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">whether decision void</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">court's discretion to set aside decision.  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">professional misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">whether misconduct in instituting proceedings on clients' behalf</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">whether proceedings brought for improper purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">whether improper to bring proceedings to terminate grant of legal aid of opponents in litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">whether misconduct in giving inaccurate evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">requirement of knowledge.  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">stay of proceedings in disciplinary tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">abuse of process of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">breach of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">whether proceedings foredoomed to fail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">delay in making complaint and instituting proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">improperly obtained evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">whether pending contempt proceedings raise same issues as legal disciplinary proceedings.  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">use of documents for collateral or ulterior purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">implied undertaking by party to whom documents produced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">use in making a complaint to legal disciplinary authority.  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.29">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.30">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">joinder of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.31">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">where complainant applied during hearing of appeal to be joined as party to proceedings between legal practitioner and legal services commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.32">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">complainant's role under legal profession act 1987 .  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.33">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">amicus curiae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.34">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 308">where complainant applied during hearing of appeal to be heard as amicus curiae in proceedings between legal practitioner and legal services commissioner. d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">power of the court to award costs against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">basis of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">grounds for exercise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">duty to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">misconceived application for entry permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">misconceived proceedings instituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 146">neglect of duty by solicitor.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">award jurisdiction against non-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">receiver and manager conducting litigation through insolvent company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">supreme court act 1867 (q), s. 58</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">rules of the supreme court of queensland o. 91, r.1.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">claim for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">order preventing dissipation of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">mareva injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">power to order provision of security for satisfaction of any judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s. 23.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">sequestration order on petition brought by solicitor without authority from petitioning creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">application to set aside or annul</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">six months' delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">consideration of costs and expenses of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">order annulled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">liability of unauthorised solicitor for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 232">whether indemnity costs appropriate.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">supreme court act 1970 (nsw), s 69</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">supreme court's supervisory jurisdiction over inferior courts and tribunals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">application for supervisory relief in respect of nsw industrial court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">no jurisdictional error committed by full bench of the industrial court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">industrial relations act 1996 (nsw), s 191 industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">industrial court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">illness of counsel leading to costs thrown away</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2010] NSWCA 307">industrial relations commission rules 1996 , r 209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">whether the trial judge erred in making findings that the proceedings were unreasonably maintained by the solicitor without proper consideration of prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where the case was listed for trial on the basis of the solicitor's representations several years after commencement of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where multiple opportunities for inspection of the husband's documents were afforded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where applications made during the lengthy hearing were found to be without merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where there was evidence to support the finding that the proceedings were unreasonably maintained with disregard of any proper consideration of the prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">no appealable error established.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">whether the trial judge erred in finding that the solicitor had an improper purpose in instituting or maintaining the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">an allegation against a legal practitioner of improper motive for the conduct of litigation is an extremely serious one which requires clear and cogent proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where there was evidence suggestive of an improper purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where such evidence taken at its highest did not meet the standard required by the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where the trial judge failed to analyse the difference between the husband's expert's oral evidence and the purported record of it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">finding of improper purpose by the trial judge unsafe.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.22">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">whether the trial judge erred in relying on "in court observations" of the wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.23">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where the trial judge's remarks were not confined to observations of the wife in the witness box</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.24">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">whether the solicitor was denied natural justice by the trial judge failing to inform him that he intended to rely on his in court observations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.25">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where the matter proceeded by way of written submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.26">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where the husband's principal submissions did make reference to the wife's demeanour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.27">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">trial judge's findings supporting the costs order not dependent on in court observations of the wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.28">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">stead v state government insurance commissioner [1986] hca 54 ; (1986) 161 clr 141 applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.29">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">appeal not allowed on this ground.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.30">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.31">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.32">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.33">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">whether the trial judge failed to provide adequate reasons for costs order against the solicitor for discrete applications made by the wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.34">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where the course adopted by the trial judge in respect of the discrete applications was practical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.35">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">the trial judge's reasons in each instances were adequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.36">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">no appealable error.  family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.37">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.38">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.39">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">costs order against solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.40">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">s 117(2) does not mandate that more than one or all of the matters in s 117(2a) must be found to warrant departure from the general provision that each party pays its own costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.41">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">where the trial jude determined that the solicitor's undue protraction of the proceedings was of itself sufficient to justify the order made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.42">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">appeal dismissed.  family law act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.43">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">s 117(1) , s 117(2) , s 117 (2a) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.44">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">s 140  family law rules 2004</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.45">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">r 1.04, r 1.07, r 1.08, r 19.10, r 19.19 civil procedure act 2005 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.46">citing from="[2010] FamCAFC 59">s 65</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 172">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 172">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 172">successful litigant in person was owner of a business providing litigation services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 172">whether entitled to be compensated by a costs order for time spent or earnings lost in conducting proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 172">whether chorley exception applies.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">application for review of decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 61">whether order should be made against barrister under r.21.07 of the federal magistrates court rules.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">application for review of decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 496">whether order should be made against barrister under r.21.07 of the federal magistrates court rules.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 232" id="cs0">As his Honour said at [92]: "The question is whether there was reason to depart from assessment of costs on the ordinary basis, and in the present case more particularly to depart to the extent of all the costs of the proceedings" . In relation to an award against a solicitor, it is appropriate to consider whether there has been "such a poor level of competence as to amount to a significant breach of duty by the practitioner" (cf. French J in Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc v The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (No 2) [2006] FCA 671 ; (2006) 233 ALR 97 at [2] ). I must now apply the above principles to the conduct of Mr Gabbedy in relation to his procuring a bankruptcy notice and pursuing a creditor's petition as the solicitor of a corporation which never gave him that authority. His conduct involved him holding himself out as having that authority to the Official Receiver, to this Court, to the trustee Mr Slaven whose appointment he procured, and --- not least --- to Mr Doulman who was the target of these actions.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWCA 307" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWIRComm 41" id="cs2">

27 In that case his Honour found that there was a serious failure by counsel to give reasonable attention to the relevant law and facts that was reflected in both the application and the proceedings instituted in the court. In a subsequent judgment, Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc and ors v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2 ) [2006] FCA 671 ; (2006) 233 ALR 97 at [11] , his Honour noted the source of the court's jurisdiction to award costs against practitioners was to be found in s 43 of the Act and in O 62, r 9. His Honour stated that the power was to be exercised with care and in clear cases only in which there had been "conduct on the part of the solicitor which amounts to serious dereliction of duty" citing Da Sousa and further noting that unreasonable conduct in connection with litigation may be sufficient to justify a costs order against a practitioner.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FamCAFC 59" id="cs3">Although not referred to by either counsel, the relevant authorities about the making of a personal costs order against a legal practitioner were comprehensively discussed by French J (as his Honour then was) in Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc and Others v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) [2006] FCA 671 ; (2006) 233 ALR 97. There his Honour was, not unlike this appeal, dealing with an application for a costs order based on the cost power in the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and the relevant rules of the Federal Court, not the inherent power of a court. In the discussion contained between paragraphs 9 and 25 his Honour referred to a number of cases and we would respectfully adopt the principles as extracted by him from those cases. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 172" id="cs4">15 There are two bases upon which the Court may make an order for costs personally against a legal practitioner. The first is s 43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). An example of the exercise of this discretion is to be seen in the case of Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc v Attorney-General (Cth) (No 2) [2006] FCA 671 ; (2007) 233 ALR 97 , where French J (as he then was) required that a barrister and solicitor pay the Commonwealth's costs personally.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 61" id="cs5">In Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc v The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (No 2) [2006] FCA 671 ; (2006) 233 ALR 97 French J referred to the approach of the Privy Council in Harley v McDonald in considering the power of the Federal Court to award costs against legal practitioners under s.43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and O.62 r.9. However what was in issue in Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc was whether a lawyer had proceeded without any prospects of success. His Honour found that the preparation and presentation of an application for judicial review "was done at such a poor level of competence as to amount to a significant breach of duty of the practitioner" (at [1] --- [2]) to the client and the Court and warranted the making of an order for costs against the lawyer personally. There was said to be a failure to discharge a legal practitioner's "basic duty" to give proper consideration to the legal issues that should have been considered before the application was filed and argument presented (at [21]). The Privy Council was said to have adopted a " careful and discriminating approach" to the circumstances in which a costs order should be made in that context. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 496" id="cs6">In Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc v The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (No 2) [2006] FCA 671 ; (2006) 233 ALR 97 French J referred to the approach of the Privy Council in Harley v McDonald in considering the power of the Federal Court to award costs against legal practitioners under s.43 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 and O.62 r.9. However what was in issue in Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc was whether a lawyer had proceeded without any prospects of success. His Honour found that the preparation and presentation of an application for judicial review "was done at such a poor level of competence as to amount to a significant breach of duty of the practitioner" (at [1] --- [2]) to the client and the Court and warranted the making of an order for costs against the lawyer personally. There was said to be a failure to discharge a legal practitioner's "basic duty" to give proper consideration to the legal issues that should have been considered before the application was filed and argument presented (at [21]). The Privy Council was said to have adopted a " careful and discriminating approach" to the circumstances in which a costs order should be made in that context. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1352" id="cs7">In Ex Christmas Islanders Association Inc v The Attorney-General for the Commonwealth (No 2) [2006] FCA 671 at [20] French J pointed out that the power to award costs against a legal practitioner has been approached in different ways by State appellate courts and Full Courts of this Court as exemplified in Levick v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 674 ; (2000) 102 FCR 155 (under provisions such as s 43 of the Federal Court Act and O 62 r 9 of the Federal Court Rules ). He reasoned that considerations of whether legal practitioners should be ordered to pay costs under the provisions governing this Court's jurisdiction depended upon whether there had been an error in the observation by a legal practitioner of a duty owed to the Court. French J followed the approach of the Privy Council in Harley v McDonald [2001] UKPC 18 ; [2001] UKPC 18 ; [2001] 2 AC 678 at 706 [57] where their Lordships said:

 'The essential point is that it is not errors of judgment that attract the exercise of the jurisdiction, but errors of a duty owed to the court. ' (see also at [2001] 2 AC at 703 [49], 706 [57]; and Cook v Pasminco Ltd [2001] FCA 1277 per Stone J and, the article by N Beaumont, 'What are "Reasonable Prospects of Success? "' (2004) 78 ALJR 812)

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 43 Visa holders must usually enter at a port</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l6">CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l7">Legal Profession Act 1987 No 109 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 180 Care and diligence--civil obligation only</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 181 Good faith--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 182 Use of position--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 183 Use of information--civil obligations</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 932">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 932">applicant successful overall but not on all issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 932">whether appropriate to apportion costs on issue by issue basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 932">whether indemnity costs should be awarded on basis of conduct leading to loss of trial date and failure to admit facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">use of colour purple in confectionery market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">further hearing on remitter from full court after opinion experts as to consumer behaviour wrongly excluded evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">rule in browne v dunn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">costs of appeal where successful party abandoned a number of grounds of appeal prior to the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">where successful party was unsuccessful on substantive issues of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">where circumstances justify apportionment of costs between the parties according to their success or failure on separate issues  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">costs of the motion on notice seeking variation of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">where motion was unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 119">no circumstance existed to justify departure from the ordinary principle that costs follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">admissibility of opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">not admissible unless opinion based on specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether rule excluding opinion evidence as to matter of common knowledge is applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">operation of s 80 evidence act 1995 (cth) ('the act')</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">requirement to consider probative value of opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether evidence might cause or result in undue waste of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">discretion to exclude evidence under s 135 the acttrade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">competitors in retail chocolate market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">use of colour purple</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">principles relating to passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether exclusive reputation required under part v trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether use of colour purple likely to mislead or deceive consumers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">competitors in retail chocolate market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">use of colour purple</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">whether applicant has exclusive reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">use of colour in connection with trade names</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">marketing from different sorts of premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">application under s.82 and accrued jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">judgment in favour of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">form of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">whether injunctive relief appropriate  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">applicant unsuccessful in many of the issues raised by him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">whether entitled to costs of the action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">award of costs in discretion of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1986] FCA 382">summary of principles upon which discretion exercised</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 80 Ultimate issue and common knowledge rules abolished</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 236">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 236">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 236">whether the tribunal failed to address a claim made by the applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 236">definition of "particular social group"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 236">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 236">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 251">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 251">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 251">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 251">fear of persecution for reason of membership of a particular "social group"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 251">whether refugee review tribunal failed to consider claim as made by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 251">whether refugee review tribunal failed to address the particular "social group" propounded in the claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 251">held refugee review tribunal committed jurisdictional error by failing to consider the claim as made</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 236" id="cs0">Mr Kumar relied on SZNVE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCA 251 (" SZNVE "), per Logan J, for the proposition, in particular, that the Tribunal's failure to address the "correct" social group could not be "cured" by the Tribunal simply addressing the issue of a well-founded fear in a general way. (See SZNVE at [27], and the reference to VWBU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 39 at [9] . ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 251" id="cs1">Because this submission was made late and not then fully developed it seemed to me in the interests of justice that the Appellants not then be required immediately to respond to it by way of oral submissions. Rather, I made directions for the filing and service of a supplementary submission on behalf of the Minister with provision then for a submission in reply by the Appellants. In that supplementary submission the Minister pressed the argument already mentioned as to the relevance by analogy of cases concerning the Tribunal's first consideration of relocation. The Appellants in reply noted that a decision principally relied upon by the Minister, Syan v Refugee Review Tribunal (1995) 61 FCR 284 had been decided prior to the Dranichnikov case. Later authority and in particular, VWBU v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 39 , underscored, so it was submitted, that a failure on the part of the Tribunal to consider the visa application as made could not be remedied by an independent finding on the part of the Tribunal that the claimed fear was not well founded. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>