Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">securities lending agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">contract to lend shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">ownership of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether securities lending agreement constitutes secured loan or purchase-and-sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether reference may be had to economic effect of transaction in determining legal character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether contract is to be construed with reference to its purpose, background, context, and market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether same contract may be construed differently if entered into in different market or by different participants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether it is reasonable and equitable to imply a term requiring shares acquired to be held and retained    corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether administrator or receiver is analogous to liquidator   equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">claim for equitable interest in shares transferred on documents purporting to give full title to broker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether equity of redemption can exist after outright transfer of title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 594">whether equitable charge over undefined shares may exist absent appropriation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 631">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 631">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 631">amalgamation of two companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 631">two schemes single application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 631">companies limited by guarantee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 631">different categories of member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 631">whether separate classes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">arrangements and reconstructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">arrangement with creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">companies in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">where proposed scheme preserves regime of application of assets in winding up but modifies procedures for proof and assessment of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">whether features providing additional information to creditors with claims on reinsurance should be included</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">whether "scheme administrators" subject to sufficient controls</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">whether "scheme adjudicators" within statutory concept of person administering compromise or arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 1180">whether leave should be granted under s.411(7) to allow existing liquidators to be scheme administrators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">proof of debt against company in administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">proof lodged for voting purposes relied on for purposes of distribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">whether deed can limit statutory right of appeal under s 1321</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">considerations relevant to extension of time for appeal under corporations rule 14.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">late submission of proof of debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">whether new proof of debt may be lodged which repeats claim made in a rejected proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">whether varied proof should be treated as a fresh proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">what constitutes rejection of a proof of debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 731">entitlement of proving creditor to participate in distribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">members' scheme of arrangement in relation to nrma limited ("association") and nrma insurance limited ("insurance") associated with the demutualisation only of insurance and with various structural changes between association and insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">court's function in convening scheme meetings and approving information memorandum in relation to complex proposals involving 1.8 million members of insurance and 1.2 million members of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">responsibilities of board and senior management to let documents speak for themselves</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">disclosure obligations in relation to company not limited by shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">role of asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">degree to which court looks at ultimate fairness of scheme at meeting convening stage and later scheme approval stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">role of objectors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">cost orders for and against objectors only made after they have been heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">other potential legal impediments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">scope of "arrangement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">what is approved by court when arrangements embrace associated steps for demutualising and implication of gambotto principles concerning expropriation of membership rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">effect of conditions subsequent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">legitimacy of scheme proxy to enable passing of later demutualisation resolutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">relevant considerations when time gap between scheme resolutions and later demutualisation resolutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">is former surrogate for later</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">identification of classes of members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no equitable constraint based on supposed common understanding of members that should remain forever a mutual</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no trust of insurance's assets such as to preclude demutualisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">qualified duty of directors to do only what was lawful in carrying out obligation to implement demutualisation steps</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">cut-off of membership involves no legal contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">when should draft information memorandum be released to media where subject to change or potentially defamatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">legal capacity of insurance and its parent nigl to pay dividends out of unrealised gains combined with realised gains and earned profits without contravening s254t of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">accounting standard aasb 1023 mandatory on insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no foundation for submission that insurance's proposed new parent could not be listed on supposition that it could not pay dividends when that supposition not made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">s411 procedure not a privilege or requiring clean hands beyond its statutory preconditions including proper disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">this an "arrangement within s411"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no basis to preclude demutualisation if members so decide in what comprehended in "mutuality principles" or by reason of past accumulation of profits rather than "mutual pricing" or premium rebates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">relevance of trend overseas to demutualise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.29">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">no basis for treating demutualisation as inevitable when this a matter for members' decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.30">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">shares issued by nigl are fully paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.31">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">par value now abolished</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.32">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 82">position at court approval stage where court's discretion remains.  acts cited:  asic act 1989 (cth) s12da  corporations law s9, s112, s136, s162, s163, ss164-166, s250a and b, s254a, s254t, s254x, s295, s296, s297, s303, s305, s411, s412, s485, s501, s995, pt 2b, pt 2e</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">circuit layouts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">application of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">importation before commencement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">sale after commencement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">infringement requirement that infringer know that exploitation not licensed by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">"owner"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">"ether infringer must know that conduct involves commercial exploitation of protected layout</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">defence where infringer unaware that eligible layout rights existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">defence ceasing to be available when infringer becomes aware that tights existed and or agrees to pay equitable remuneration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">circuit layouts act 1989 (cth), ss. 7 , 8 , 19 (3), 20 .   constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">powers of commonwealth parliament copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">circuit layout legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">acquisition of property from those adversely affected by intellectual property rights created</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">whether acquisition otherwise than on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">the constitution (62 and 63 viet. c. 12), s. 51 (xviii), (xxxi)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1994] HCA 27">circuit layouts act 1989 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">acquisition on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">injured worker entitled to compensation and tight of action for damages at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">statutory removal of right of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">whether acquisition of property other than on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xxxi)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth), s. 44.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">acquisition on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">sales tax imposed on swimming pools</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">contravention of requirement that laws imposing taxation deal only with imposition of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">act providing for refund of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">refund to builder where tax not passed on to owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">refund to owner where tax passed on</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">whether law with respect to taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">whether acquisition of builder's property otherwise than on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(ii) , (xxxi), (xxxix), 61</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">swimming pools tax refund act 1992 (cth), s. 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">external affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">international convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">implementation by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">international obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">international concern</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">subject-matter of convention not within specific head of commonwealth legislative power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">inconsistency between commonwealth and state laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">state statute authorizing construction of dam in described area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">commonwealth statute and regulations prohibiting works likely to damage or destroy national heritage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">application of statute and regulations to dam construction area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51(xxix) , 109</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">national parks and wildlife conservation act 1975 (cth), ss. 69 , 171</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage properties conservation act 1983 (cth), ss. 3 , 6 , 9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">gordon river hydro-electric power development act 1982 (tas.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage (western tasmania wilderness) regulations 1983 (cth).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">trading corporations formed within the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">prohibition of certain acts by trading corporation done for purposes of its trading activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">acts not inherently concerned with trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">trading corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">state hydro-electricity authority incorporated by special statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage properties conservation act 1983 (cth), ss. 3 , 7 , 10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">hydro-electric commission act 1944 (tas.).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.27">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.28">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">people of any race for whom deemed necessary to make special laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.29">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">declaration of necessity to enact law as special law for the people of aboriginal race</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.30">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">prohibition of certain acts on site within specified area without ministerial consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.31">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">specified area to form part of cultural or natural heritage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.32">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">sites to have special significance to people of aboriginal race</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.33">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">prohibited acts: damage destruction or removal of artefacts or relics on site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.34">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxi)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.35">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage properties conservation act 1983 (cth), ss. 3 , 8 , 11 , 13 .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.36">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.37">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage properties conservation act 1983 (cth), ss. 6(e) , 9 .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.38">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.39">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">prohibition of use of land within specified areas without ministerial consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.40">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">whether acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.41">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">whether just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.42">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">provision for determination of compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.43">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">failure to accept compensation recommended by commission of inquiry a condition to right for judicial determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.44">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxi)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.45">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage conservation properties act 1983 (cth), ss. 6-11, 17, 20</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.46">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage (western tasmania wilderness) regulations.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.47">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.48">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.49">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">use of waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.50">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">right of state or residents thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.51">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">prohibition of abridgment by commonwealth law or regulation of trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.52">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">commonwealth statute and regulations prohibiting certain works within specified area without ministerial consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.53">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">state statute authorizing damming of river for hydro-electricity generation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.54">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">works prohibited without commonwealth ministerial consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.55">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">whether commonwealth laws are laws or regulations of trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.56">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 100</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.57">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">national parks and wildlife conservation act 1975 (cth), s. 69</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.58">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage properties conservation act 1983 (cth), ss. 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.59">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.60">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">world heritage (western tasmania wilderness) regulations 1983 (cth).  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.61">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">commonwealth power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.62">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">implied prohibitions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.63">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">laws impairing legislative or executive functions of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.64">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">laws affecting state prerogative concerning crown land.  international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.65">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">international convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.66">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.67">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">obligations of states parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.68">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">ratification and adoption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.69">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">federal state clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.70">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">convention for the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.71">cited from="[1983] HCA 21">vienna convention on the law of treaties, arts. 31, 32.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">privy council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">appeal from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">question as to limits inter se of constitutional powers of commonwealth and states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">wheat</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">compulsory acquisition by commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">compensation to growers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">validity of regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">certificate of high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1952] HCA 11">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 74.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">arrangements and reconstructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">schemes of arrangement or compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">application for order for meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">where the applicant company applied for orders to convene meetings of the members and option holders to consider schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">where the schemes provide for the 'top hatting' of the applicant company by a uk company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">whether the court should order meetings and approve an explanatory statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2011] QSC 108">whether separate meetings should be convened for different classes of shareholders and option holders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">orders convening first meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">demerger of part of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">whether partly paid or overseas shareholders constitute separate class</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">s 411 corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">orders convening first meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">demerger of part of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">whether partly paid or overseas shareholders constitute separate class</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">citing from="[2011] VSC 93">s 411 corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">acquisition of shares and cancellation of rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">application for meeting under s 411(1) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">factors to consider at meeting stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">independent expert's opinion of the schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">performance risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">exclusivity period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">no-talk and no shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">deemed warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">information for shareholders and rightsholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2011] VSC 4">sections 411 and 412 corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">arrangements and reconstructions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">scheme of arrangement between a company and all members other than acquirer and its associates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">member with 52% of shares grants option to purchase 19.9% to acquirer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">option exercisable in certain circumstances related to emergence of counter-proposal and bettering thereof by acquirer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">whether 52% shareholder thereby set aside so as to constitute separate class of members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">members' scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">voting by members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">whether court should by order specify members' voting rights and cut-off time for recognition of entitlements to vote</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">no need for court to deal with either matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">discussion of members' voting rights under part 5.1 where the part 5.1 body is a "company"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1316">as to cut-off time, court should allow fixing by the company in accordance with regulations accommodating share trading and transfer system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">orders convening meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] VSC 423">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 411</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 34">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 34">application pursuant to s 411 corporations act 2001 (cth) for orders convening meeting of shareholders to approve scheme of arrangement and approving explanatory statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 34">proposed capital reduction condition precedent to scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 34">risk that capital reduction will prejudice ability of csr to meet asbestos liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 34">whether primary judge erred in dismissing application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">merger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">application for meeting under s.411(1) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">factors to consider at meeting stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">independent expert's opinion of the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">performance risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">exclusivity period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">no-talk and no shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">deemed warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">information for shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">ss.411 and 412 corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">judge : davies j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 4 december 2009 date of judgment: 8 december 2009 case may be cited as : re cytopia ltd medium neutral citation : [2009] vsc 560 first revision on 10 december 2009</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">merger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.14">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">application for meeting under s.411(1) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.15">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">factors to consider at meeting stage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.16">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">independent expert's opinion of the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.17">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">performance risk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.18">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">exclusivity period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.19">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">no-talk and no shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.20">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">deemed warranty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.21">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">information for shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.22">citing from="[2009] VSC 560">ss.411 and 412 corporations act 2001 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">schemes of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">first court hearing at which orders sought for the holding of meetings of share holders and option holders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">in the case of option holders, two classes proposed and therefore two meetings of option holders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">one class the holders of in-the-money options and the other class the holders of out-of-the-money options</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">proposal that consideration to be offered for in-the-money options be based on intrinsic value methodology, whereas consideration to be offered for out-of-the-money options be based on black-scholes methodology</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">objection by two in-the-money option holders that holders of in-the-money options should also have the benefit of the black-scholes methodology rather than the intrinsic value methodology</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">principles relating to creation of classes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">whether impossible for members of proposed class to consult with other members of it with a view to their common interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1277">possibility of objection at final court hearing on ground of unfairness or oppression.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 864">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 864">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 864">considerations relevant to exercise of discretion to approve scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 864">whether the scheme is fair and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 864">when a scheme may be altered by the court</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] QSC 108" id="cs0">[13] However, the focus must be upon the differences, if any, between different groups of shareholders or option holders, by reason of any differences in their respective legal rights as such. In UDL Argos Engineering  Heavy Industries Co Ltd v Li Oi Lin, [1] Lord Millett said that the test is whether the legal rights of persons are sufficiently similar or dissimilar, and not whether there is a sufficient similarity or dissimilarity of interests not derived from such legal rights and that "[t]he fact that individuals may hold divergent views based on their private interests not derived from their legal rights against the company is not a ground for calling separate meetings". [2] Australian Courts have applied the same principle: see eg Re NRMA Insurance Ltd (No 1); [3] Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited [4] and Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd. [5]
[14] In the proposed scheme for shareholders, there are different provisions according to whether, at the relevant date, [6] a shareholder is what is described as an Eligible (CDI) Scheme Member, which is defined to mean a shareholder who is then recorded on the Australian register of the company's shareholders. On the implementation date those shareholders would receive CDIs, the shares being held by the nominee. Other shareholders participating in the scheme would be issued with shares in the UK company.
16. The balance of the Application filed 20 April 2011 is adjourned to 20 June 2011.
 CATCHWORDS: CORPORATIONS --- ARRANGEMENTS AND RECONSTRUCTIONS --- SCHEMES OF ARRANGEMENT OR COMPROMISE --- APPLICATION FOR ORDER FOR MEETING --- where the applicant company applied for orders to convene meetings of the members and option holders to consider schemes of arrangement --- where the schemes provide for the 'top hatting' of the applicant company by a UK company --- whether the court should order meetings and approve an explanatory statement --- whether separate meetings should be convened for different classes of shareholders and option holders
 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 411
 Companies Act 2006 (UK) Securities Act of 1933 (USA), s 3(a)(10)
 Re Asia Oil  Minerals Ltd (1986) 5 NSWLR 42 , cited
 Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited [2006] NSWSC 485 ; (2006) 57 ACSR 791 , cited
 Re Kaz Group Ltd [2004] FCA 738 , cited
 Re MIA Group Ltd [2004] NSWSC 712 ; (2004) 50 ACSR 29 , cited
 Re NRMA Insurance Ltd (No 1) [2000] NSWSC 82 ; (2000) 156 FLR 349 , cited
 Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd [2009] FCA 813 ; (2009) 179 FCR 20 , cited UDL Argos Engineering  Heavy Industries Co Ltd v Li Oi Lin [2001] HKCFA 54 ; [2001] 3 HKLRD 634 , applied COUNSEL: R Lilley SC with C Jennings for the applicant SOLICITORS: Norton Rose for the applicant
 [1] On 4 May 2011, I made orders to convene meetings of the members and option holders of Allied Gold Limited to consider two concurrent schemes of arrangement. I also then approved explanatory statements to be sent to shareholders and option holders. These are my reasons for the orders made on that day.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] VSC 93" id="cs1">15 That test has been adopted ever since in members' schemes. In more recent times, the courts have observed that the test laid down is not one of identical treatment but rather one of community of interest. [5] As Santow J has noted, "divergent commercial interests extrinsic to share membership are ordinarily not a factor which should differentiate classes. " [6] The courts are also mindful that if there is more than one class, each will have a power of veto. [7] As Lush J stated in Re International Harvester this:
... undermines the basic approach of decision by a large majority, and ... should only be permitted if there are dissimilar interests related to the company and its scheme to be protected. The fact that two views may be expressed at a meeting because one group prefers one course ... while another group prefers another, is not a reason for calling two separate meetings. [8]

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] VSC 4" id="cs2">11 The matters referred to in paragraph (a) of the preceding paragraph require the Court to look forward to the exercise of the Court's discretion at the stage of the s 411 procedure when the Court is asked to approve the scheme. Thus, Davies J said in Re Cytopia Ltd: [5]

 "The approach that the Court should adopt when considering this application is to review the scheme and the Scheme Booklet to ascertain whether the scheme complies with the requirements under the Act and to consider whether there is any presently discernible reason as to why the proposed scheme of arrangement should not be put to the meeting of the members to vote on. Ordinarily, the Court will not order the convening of a meeting 'unless the scheme is of such a nature and cast in such terms that, if it achieves the statutory majority at the ... meeting the court would be likely to approve it on the hearing of a petition which is unopposed'. [6] Thus, as Finkelstein J observed in Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd : [7]

 [I]t is necessary for a court to be alive to any difficulties that may arise if in due course it may be asked to approve the scheme. [8]

 The authorities make it clear that the Court's role at this stage is not to express a view on whether the proposed scheme should be approved. [9] It is also clear that it is not the Court's role to usurp the shareholders' decision, by attempting to intrude its own commercial judgment. [10] The Court is to be concerned with whether there is adequate disclosure to the shareholders in the Scheme Booklet (or explanatory memorandum), whether the legal requirements otherwise have been complied with and whether the scheme, on its face, is one that is sufficiently 'fair and reasonable' to be capable of being put to shareholders for their approval or rejection. [11] " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 1316" id="cs3">

20 The current Australian practice is the same: see, for example, the express approval of it by Finkelstein J in Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd [2009] FCA 813 ; (2009) 179 FCR 20 (at [16]ff) and the recent authoritative statement in Re CSR Ltd [2010] FCAFC 34 ; (2010) 183 FCR 358. But any view reached on the matter of classes upon the hearing of the s 411(1) application will necessarily be provisional. It will not prevent full debate on the issue if and when it is raised at any s 411(4)(b) hearing. An issue of possible class differentiation may emerge for the first time at that point: see, for example, Re HIH Casualty and General Insurance Ltd [2006] NSWSC 485 ; (2006) 200 FLR 243. Members generally have not had any earlier opportunity to be heard and to put arguments to the court. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 423" id="cs4">37 The test for whether the option deed causes a separate class is not one of identical treatment but of community of interest. The relevant question is whether the rights of particular persons are so dissimilar that they cannot sensibly consult together with a view to their common interest but must be given separate meetings. Persons whose rights are sufficiently similar that they can consult together with a view to their common interest should be summoned to a single meeting. [18] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 34" id="cs5">60 The courts have not previously considered it necessary, at the application stage, under s 411(1) of the Act or its analogues, to examine in any great detail a proposed compromise or arrangement. As was noted by Finkelstein J in In the matter of Opes Prime Stockbroking Limited [2009] FCA 813 ( Opes Prime ) at [17]:. For example, in England the practice note reported in [1934] WN 142 affirmed that it was for the company to decide whether creditors should be divided into classes for voting purposes, taking the risk that the correct decision was made, which would only be discovered at the approval hearing. In UDL Argos Engineering  Heavy Industries Co Ltd v Li Oi Lin [2001] HKCFA 54 ; [2001] 3 HKLRD 634 Lord Millett, sitting as a non-permanent judge of the Court of Final Appeal in Hong Kong, said this practice was a sound one. It has been applied to other issues relating to jurisdiction. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSC 560" id="cs6">[1] Thus, as Finkelstein J observed in Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd: [2]

 [I]t is necessary for a court to be alive to any difficulties that may arise if in due course it may be asked to approve the scheme.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1277" id="cs7">In In the matter of Opes Prime Stockbroking Limited [2009] FCA 813 ; (2009) 73 ACSR 385 , Finkelstein J said (at [66]):

 The application of the relevant test involves a comparison of the rights creditors have in the absence of the scheme and any new rights that are established under the scheme: Re T  N Ltd (No 3) [2007] 1 All ER at 882. Once those differences are identified the question whether they form separate classes must be assessed with the following factors in mind. First, when creditors are broken up into classes, each class is given power to veto the scheme and that is a process that undermines the basic approach of decision by majority: Nordic Bank Plc v International Harvester Australia Ltd [1983] VicRp 89 ; [1983] 2 VR 298 , 301.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] HCATrans 295" id="cs8">HIS HONOUR: At first instance it is [2009] FCA 813 ; 258 ALR 362.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 130" id="cs9">107 All parties referred to the recent decision by Finklestein J in In the matter of Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (in liq) [2009] FCA 813 ; (2009) 258 ALR 362. He held that s 411 permitted the Court to approve an arrangement under s 411 that required unsecured creditors of the company to release their claims against outsiders by authorising the scheme administrators to execute releases on the creditors' behalf. No Australian authority supported his Honour's reasoning. It is inapposite to Pt 5.3A for the reasons above. In Opes 258 ALR at 373 [36]-[38] Finkelstein J did not follow the decision in Re Buildmat (Australia) Pty Ltd and the Companies Act (1981) 5 ACLR 689 at 692, where Needham J held that the discharge of a debt under a scheme of arrangement did not release the liability to the creditor of a surety for that debt. That is the very result confirmed by s 444J in respect of deeds of company arrangement.  111 Thus, it is not necessary to decide whether Finkelstein J in Opes [2009] FCA 813 ; 258 ALR 362 or the Full Court on appeal in Fowler [2009] FCAFC 125 correctly construed s 411, but these reasons should not be seen as endorsing the reasoning in either decision. However, the Full Court did not refer to the basic principles of statutory construction that require interpretation of legislative provisions in such a way as will not affect individuals' property rights without the clearest words: American Dairy Queen 147 CLR at 682-683; Bropho 171 CLR at 18; Blue Metal Industries 117 CLR at 659. Nor did they examine the ratio of McLelland J's reasoning in Re Glendale [1982] 2 NSWLR 563 , that the Court order authorised by s 411 of the Act (or its predecessors) does not give any validity to so much of a scheme as affects rights or liabilities as between an outsider and creditors of a company. 142 It is true that two recent decisions of this Court --- Re Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd [2009] FCA 813 ; (2009) 258 ALR 362 and the appeal from that decision, Re Fowler v Lindholm; Opes Prime Stockbroking Ltd [2009] FCAFC 125 --- have concluded that a third party release may be approved as part of a scheme of arrangement under Part 5.1. Since the question for present purposes is whether that proposition was established in 1992, there is no need for me to express a view about the correctness of those decisions, save to the extent that they impact on my interpretation of the five cases to which I have referred. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 864" id="cs10">There is a description of the background leading to the proposed schemes and a summary of the schemes themselves in my reasons for permitting the liquidators to convene the meetings: see In the matter of Opes Prime Stockbroking Limited [2009] FCA 813. I do not propose to repeat what I there said. For present purposes, an abbreviated description will suffice. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 412 Information as to compromise with creditors</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 413 Provisions for facilitating reconstruction and amalgamation of Part 5.1 bodies</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 556 Priority payments</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588FA Unfair preferences</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588FB Uncommercial transactions</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588FD Unfair loans to a company</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 588FJ Floating charge created within 6 months before relation-back day</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1321 Appeals from decisions of receivers, liquidators etc.</title>
<title id="l10">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l11">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 No. 109 of 1989 - SECT 51 Acquisition and disposal of shares</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 No. 109 of 1989 - SECT 411 Power to compromise with creditors and members</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">appeals on a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">nature of an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">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="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">where purported questions seek to characterise a question of fact as a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">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="cp0.6">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="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">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="cp0.9">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="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">s 101(2)(a) of commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">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="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 27">interaction of safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) and veterans' entitlements act 1989 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">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="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">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="cp1.2">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="cp1.3">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="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether tribunal failed to consider submissions of substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal not obliged to refer to every aspect of evidence or submissions supporting its view</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">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="cp1.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal did not explain how additional conditions arose out of claimed injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal accepted respondent no longer suffered from effects of injury as originally notified and claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal did not give sufficient reasons for decision that compensable injuries were related to claimed injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">tribunal failed to consider important alternative explanation in relation to second reviewable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">finding of material fact for which there was no evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">both reviewable decisions to be remitted to tribunal administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">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="cp1.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">grounds of appeal same</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether court has jurisdiction under both applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether judicial review be limited to question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">whether court should exercise discretion to restrict to questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">comcare v etheridge (2006) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">citing from="[2008] FCA 236">applications heard simultaneously</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">diagnosed psychiatric condition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">applicant employed by ato</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">experienced panic attacks at work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">claimed compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">whether injury caused by employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">applicant suffered from an injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">adjustment disorder, anxiety and depression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">injury caused by employment with ato</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">applicant entitled to compensation -decision under review set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">citing from="[2007] AATA 2018">costs order foreshadowed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 236" id="cs0">72 The medical opinion accepted by the Tribunal, given some two years after the claimed injury, was that the additional conditions were aggravated by Mr Sellick's work duties. The Tribunal does not explain how the claimed pain and injury of 2002 which had resolved resulted in the additional conditions which, in turn, were the reason for Mr Sellick's ongoing pain. The 2004 diagnoses were made well after the injury he sustained in 2002. Mr Sellick has not demonstrated how they fulfil the claim requirements of the SRC Act. It is impossible to understand from the Tribunal's reasons the reasoning process that led it to conclude that Australia Post continued to be liable for a claimed injury that had resolved and where the claimed symptoms of that injury had resolved. The Tribunal accepted that the additional conditions were caused by or rendered symptomatic by Mr Sellick's work duties but did not explain the connection with the specific claim. Failure to consider issues critical to the validity of its decision is a failure to address the correct legal question which is an error of law ( Australian Postal Corporation v Barry [2006] FCA 1751 ; [2006] 44 AAR 186 at [23] ---[24]). There is an error of law where the Tribunal's reasoning is impossible to understand ( Lang at [55]).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 2018" id="cs1">Mr Richards, who appeared for Mr Chadha, argued that we had no jurisdiction to make such findings. In support of his argument he relied on Australian Postal Corporation v Barry [2006] FCA 1751. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l4">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l5">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 16 Powers of the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court in respect of applications for order of review</title>
<title id="l6">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 19 Act not to apply in relation to certain decisions</title>
<title id="l7">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l8">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l9">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 14 Compensation for injuries</title>
<title id="l10">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 16 Compensation in respect of medical expenses etc.</title>
<title id="l11">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Compensation for injuries resulting in incapacity</title>
<title id="l12">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 24 Compensation for injuries resulting in permanent impairment</title>
<title id="l13">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 62 Reconsideration of determinations</title>
<title id="l14">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 64 Applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 61">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 61">appeal dismissed by reason of absence of appellant pursuant to s25(2b)(bb)(ii) of federal court of australia act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 61">order dismissing appeal entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 61">court has power under s25(2b)(bc) to set that order aside notwithstanding entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 61">application otherwise dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">consent orders made in 2007</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">application by motion to have orders set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">no express power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">no incidental power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">discretion to refuse relief   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">power to set aside orders made by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 208">orders entered</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 208" id="cs0">One express exception set forth in the Act is s 25(2B)(bc) which permits the Court to " vary or set aside an order " made pursuant to s 25(2B)(bb), namely an order dismissing an appeal by reason of an appellant's failure to attend a hearing relating to the appeal. That power is a power conferred " in general terms " and " should be construed liberally and without the making of implications or the imposition of limitations not found in the words used by Parliament ": SZISM v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 61 at [20] [2007] FCAFC 61 ; , 158 FCR 292 at 298 per Black CJ, Weinberg and Allsop JJ. As contemplated in SZISM, the power conferred by s 25(2B)(bc) is a power which can be exercised even after the orders have been entered. See also: SZCOZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 641 at [1] ; Brannan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1900 at [3] ; SZJYK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1462 at [2] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 338 Decisions reviewable by Migration Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494B Methods by which Minister gives documents to a person</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 359A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">s 43 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">circumstances justifying departure from the general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">public interest litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">held: unsuccessful appellant ordered to pay a percentage of each respondent's costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">freedom of information act 1982 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">s 9 requirement to make documents publicly available for inspection and for purchase and to publish a statement specifying those documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">interaction of ss 9(1) , 9 (2)(a) and 9 (2)(b)   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">s 13 obligation to give reasons for a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">meaning of "decision"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">requirement of a deliberative process   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">standing as a "person aggrieved"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">necessity of an interest beyond that of an ordinary member of the public   remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 56">decision under review set aside, revoked or superseded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">practice (n.s.w)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">litigant in person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">compensation for time spent in preparation and conduct of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">whether entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w), ss. 19(1) , 76(1) supreme court rules 1970 (n.s.w), pt 52 , r. 23(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates' courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">discretion to award costs to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 59">magistrates (summary proceedings) act 1975 (vict.), s.97(b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 810">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 810">appeal against decision of administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 810">appeal on question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 810">whether grounds of appeal raise question or questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 810">whether appeal grounds made out.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1997 (cth) for review of decision by a delegate of the native title registrar to register an indigenous land use agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">application to review decision unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">whether circumstances of the case warrant departure from ordinary rule as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">where reasonableness of review application and public importance of issues raised warrant departure from ordinary rule as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">relevance of s 85a of the native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">no order as to costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 810" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1479" id="cs1">25 Even in federal judicial review proceedings unconcerned with the Native Title Act , costs do not invariably follow the event. Duncan v Chief Executive Officer, Centrelink (No 2) [2008] FCA 667 (Finn J) offers a recent example. In that case, (at para 4) his Honour observed:
 Notwithstanding the ordinary principle of costs following the event, there are two considerations of potentially present relevance of which account properly can be taken in justification of a departure from that principle. These are the reasonableness of the applicant in bringing the application and where the respondent, as in this case, is a public authority, the general importance both of the clarification of the law for such an authority and of securing proper compliance with it: see eg Perrett v Commissioner for Superannuation (1991) 29 FCR 581 at 594; see also Wilderness Society Inc v Hon Malcolm Turnbull, Minister for Environment and Water Resources [2008] FCAFC 19 at [7] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l4">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l5">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 9 Review of scheme--by agencies</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 99">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 99">employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 99">termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 99">whether employee's employment was terminated for a reason proscribed in s 170ck(2)(e) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth). costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 99">whether costs were incurred because of an unreasonable act or omission in connection with the conduct of the proceeding.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">unlawful termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">university suspended and terminated employment of tenured senior lecturer without notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">refusal to accept new undergraduate teaching allocations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">serious misconduct justifying immediate dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">complaints of harassment, discrimination and victimisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">no ground of unlawful termination found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">complaints were not a reason for termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 35">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">unlawful termination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">complaint to employer only does not satisfy criteria of s.659(2)(e)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">reverse onus of proof not enlivened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">s.793(1)(j) may not be limited to interaction with industrial associations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">discussion of objects clauses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">discussion of whether workcover is a "person or body having the capacity under an industrial law" to seek compliance with that law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">discussion of whether provisions of the occupational health and safety act 2000 (nsw) may be industrial laws</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">summary dismissal application not frivolous and vexatious only because dismissal not sought below in the australian industrial relations commission.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">no reasonable prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">summary dismissal application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">appropriate test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">discussion of "frivolous and vexatious"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">application in a case not out of time if proceedings still on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">grant of interim relief to applicant inappropriate while application to summarily dismiss proceedings pending.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">disqualification application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2104">allegations of bias not made out.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 35" id="cs0">[53] (1987) 168 CLR 165 at 176, also Dawson J at 184. [54] As has been held in He v Lewin [2004] FCAFC 161 ; (2004) 137 FCR 266 at [44] and [70], followed in Zhang v Royal Australian Chemical Institute Inc [2005] FCAFC 99 at [23] . See also Bahonko v Moorfields Community [2005] FCAFC 116 at [22] , Wang v University of NSW [2005] FCA 1040 at [8] , Ansari v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2007] FCA 1908 at [36] , and Sapula v ResMed Ltd [2007] FCA 438. [55] Zhang (supra) at [31]. [56] The onus of proof on the employer was accepted by the University: see North v Television Corporation Ltd (1976) 11 ALR 599 at 603, and Kennelly v Incitec Ltd [1998] 1470 FCA (Spender J, 29 October 1998), citing Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 165" id="cs1">9 His Honour dealt with that application on the basis that he was bound by decisions of the Full Court of this Court in He v Lewin [2004] FCAFC 161 ; (2004) 137 FCR 266 and Zhang v Royal Australian Chemical Institute Inc [2005] FCAFC 99 ; (2005) 144 FCR 347 , as well as the decision of Buchanan J in Sapula v ResMed Ltd [2007] FCA 438. Each of those decisions held that a jurisdictional requirement had to be satisfied to ground an action under s 659(2)(e) of the Act. This was that an actual complaint must have been filed in a relevant place before the employee could claim to have been dismissed for a reason which included the filing of that complaint or his or her participation in proceedings against the employer involving an alleged violation of laws or regulations, or recourse to competent administrative authorities, as provided in s 659(2)(e).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 2104" id="cs2">I note that in Sapula v ResMed Limited [2007] FCA 438 the applicant employee had not made any complaint to an organisation outside his employment, his complaint having been made to his employer instead. Buchanan J applied Zhang's case to the operation of s.659 of the Act as it now stands, observing that it seemed to be directly on point and finding that the applicant had no cause of action arising under s.659 of the Act. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">appellant s395/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  appellant s396/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">particular social group identified as homosexual men in bangladesh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether well-founded fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether error of law by refugee review tribunal in finding that no real chance of persecution because appellants conducted themselves discreetly and would continue to do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether finding had effect of requiring appellants to act discreetly to avoid persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 71">whether need to act discreetly to avoid serious harm constituted persecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">applicant born in cameroon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">applicant became south african citizen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">riots in south africa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">xenophobic violence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether fear of persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether real chance of future persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">past persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether irrelevant considerations personal to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether factual basis for tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether tribunal decision rational or logical.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">corroboration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">corroboration in relation to alleged past persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether corroboration required.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether decision rational or logical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">citing from="[2011] FMCA 327">whether inference reasonably open.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 327" id="cs0">The first respondent submits that: the Tribunal was entitled to have regard to the absence of past persecution; the Tribunal considered the absence of past persecution in conjunction with all other relevant considerations; in: Applicant NABD of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [66] it was noted that: In many, perhaps most cases, the primary basis for what is said to be a well-founded fear of future persecution is an account of past persecution, usually given as the reason for leaving a country of nationality. [67] SZNDJ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [68] the Court held: Insofar as it is contended that the Tribunal had to analyse the future harm the applicant may face, in circumstances where the Tribunal did not accept the credibility of any of the applicant's claims about past harm which he claimed gave rise to a well-founded fear of persecution, it was not necessary for it to go on to analyse in any more detail than it did the possibility of future harm. [69] SBZF v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [70] the Federal Court held: It is, of course, relevant in determining whether there is a real chance that an event will occur for a particular reason in the future to consider whether similar events have or have not occurred in the past for the same or similar reasons. It was appropriate, therefore, for the Tribunal to determine whether or not the appellant herself had been subject to persecutory conduct for a Convention reason: Guo 191 CLR 559. However, a finding that she has not previously been subject to persecution for a Convention reason does not necessarily answer the question as to whether there is a real chance that she will be subject to persecutory conduct in the future if she were to return to China for a Convention reason: Appellant S395/2002 216clr473.html" class="autolink_findacts">216 CLR 473 per Gummow and Hayne JJ at 499.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 91R Persecution</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>