Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">applicant offered employment by australian tax office as gst field officer based in launceston on condition that should he be found unfit for employment the offer would be withdrawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">applicant commenced duties and embarked on training program</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">respondent subsequently advised of applicant's high blood pressure reading (hypertension) at medical examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">respondent withdrew offer of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">later testing showed applicant affected by "white coat syndrome" (elevated blood pressure reading caused by anxiety reaction to testing)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">respondent relied on defence under s 15(4) of disability discrimination act 1992 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">claim for reinstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 603">claim for damages included (i) difference between earnings from termination to date and hypothetical earnings at ato (ii) difference between anticipated future earnings and hypothetical earnings at ato (iii) expense incurred on house purchase and loss of capital appreciation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">patent for (+)-enantiomer of the racemate, citalopram, and for method of obtaining that enantiomer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">patentee also held previous patent for the racemate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">both the racemate and the enantiomer, drugs for the treatment of depression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">(+)-citalopram claimed to be therapeutically more effective than citalopram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">challenge to validity of claim for (+)-citalopram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">construction of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">whether for (+)-enantiomer as an independently existing molecule or whether also for (+)-enantiomer when part of racemate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">whether claim for (+)-enantiomer anticipated by patent for citalopram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">whether (+)-enantiomer as an independent molecule was obvious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">australian test for obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">application of that test to product claims for the (+)-enantiomer, and to method claim for the method of obtaining it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">lack of utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">product claim for a dosage that, inter alia , was less than and more than a useful dosage range. held : (1) upon its proper construction, product claimed was the independently existing enantiomer; (2) the invention of the independently existing enantiomer was not anticipated by the patent for the racemate; (3) the australian "matter of routine" test for obviousness, when applied to the invention of the product, equated to the question whether those skilled in the art, as a matter of routine, would have had the goal of obtaining separate enantiomers in the expectation that one would be a desirable drug for the treatment of depression; (4) one of the product claims relating to dosage failed test of utility; (5) on the evidence, neither the (+)-enantiomer nor the method for obtaining it was obvious at the priority date.   patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">extension of term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">patent for (+)-enantiomer of the racemate, citalopram, and for method of obtaining that enantiomer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">patentee also held previous patent for the racemate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">both the racemate and the enantiomer, drugs for the treatment of depression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">(+)-citalopram claimed to be therapeutically more effective than citalopram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">both cipramil (goods based on racemic citalopram) and lexapro (goods based on (+)-citalopram) entered in australian register of therapeutic goods (artg)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">application for extension of term of patent for (+)-citalopram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">commissioner of patents initially granted extension sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">subsequently, following hearing before her delegate, decided to reduce term of extension on ground that "first regulatory approval date" was date when goods cipramil based on racemate had been entered in artg</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">appeal by patentee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">opponent pharmaceutical company contending that no extension at all should have been granted because application for extension had been made outside six month period following date of first inclusion in artg of goods containing the (+)-enantiomer, namely, cipramil, of which the active pharmaceutical substance was the racemate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">questions of proper construction of patents act 1990 (cth) ss 70 , 71 , 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">whether goods based on racemate "contain" individual enantiomer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.28">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">meaning of "first regulatory approval date" in s 70(5) of act. held : (1) cipramil contained pharmaceutical substance (+)-citalopram; (2) application for extension of term of patent had not been made within six months of first inclusion in artg of cipramil; (3) in circumstances, commissioner had lacked power to grant any extension to term of patent; (4) register of patents to be rectified by removal of particulars of extension.   patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.29">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.30">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">patent for (+)-enantiomer of the racemate, citalopram, and for method of obtaining that enantiomer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.31">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">generic company applying to therapeutic goods administration (tga) for registration of generic drug based on (+)-enantiomer of citalopram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.32">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">whether doctrine of "mechanical equivalents" or "non-essential integers" applicable to method of obtaining pharmaceutical compound</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.33">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">generic pharmaceutical company producing generic drug only for purpose of applying for regulatory approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.34">cited from="[2008] FCA 559">s 78(2) of patents act 1990 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 63">aboriginals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 63">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 63">determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 63">continuation of traditional laws and customs since sovereignty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 63">connection of applicants with land or waters claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 63">substantial claim area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 63">separate question relating to metropolitan perth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 39">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 39">misrepresentation as inducement to enter into insurance agency agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 39">continuing misrepresentations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 39">whether representations were made in relation to the employment of agents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 39">whether termination of agreement constituted unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 39">breach of agreement.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 63">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 63">federal court rules 1979 (cth) o 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 63">request by party for referral to legal practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 63">referral refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 63">held that order 80 confined to proceedings before the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 63">held that order 80 does not extend to making a referral prior to commencement of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 63">proceedings not properly "commenced" or "carried on"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether conduct capable of amounting to representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether representations continuous or made as to future matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">onus of proof in establishing 'reasonable grounds' for making representation. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">whether a duty of care to avoid economic loss owed. damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">method of calculation in claims under trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 2">no error in primary judge's approach.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">effectiveness of a disclaimer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">false representations about services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">representations that goods or service have performance or other characteristics they do not have</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">television, print and internet advertisements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">assessing conduct by reference to a specific class or classes of consumers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1904">whether conduct by a licensed dealer can be said to have been "engaged in on behalf of" the licensor company or "at the direction or with the consent or agreement of" a servant of the licensor company under s 84(2)(b) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) if the licensor company had a direct interest in the conduct and failed to take steps to stop it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">no clear evidence of offer and acceptance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">examine conduct of parties to determine if they have agreed to incur reciprocal obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">commercial arrangement may strongly suggest contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">agreement on essential elements only partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">application of s 2 of partnership act 1892 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">importance of agency and relationship of mutuality of rights and obligations in establishing partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">agreement to make mortgage payments more consistent with profit sharing than with dividend payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">no agreement as to duration and therefore terminable at will</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">fiduciary obligations regardless of whether partnership agreement concluded or not  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">representations as to existing fact and representations as to future matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">representation by silence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">conduct directed toward particular persons examined from their perspective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">operation of s 51a trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">party making representation must establish reasonable grounds on balance of probabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">representation of ownership without legal or equitable interest or prospect of acquiring such interest misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">contributory conduct by other party irrelevant where no reasonable grounds for making representation at time it was made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">damages and causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1136">carelessness of representee no basis for excluding relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">"married woman's equity"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">undue influence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">duress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">third party mortgage by wife supporting loan to husband's company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">right to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife a volunteer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife reposed trust and confidence in husband</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife mistaken about purport and effect of transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">guarantor's declaration signed at wife's home and not in the presence of bank officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">no independent legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">failure of creditor to explain transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">failure of creditor to comply with creditor's code of practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife's will overborne by husband's aggressive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">illegitimate pressure on part of husband. stefan wenczel third defendant by counterclaim (counterclaim)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">judge : habersberger j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 15-18; 21-24 february 2005; 15 april 2005 date of judgment : 8 september 2006 case may be cited as : wenczel v commonwealth bank of australia medium neutral citation : [2006] vsc 324</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">"married woman's equity"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">undue influence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">duress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">third party mortgage by wife supporting loan to husband's company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">right to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife a volunteer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife reposed trust and confidence in husband</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.26">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife mistaken about purport and effect of transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.27">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">guarantor's declaration signed at wife's home and not in the presence of bank officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.28">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">no independent legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.29">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">failure of creditor to explain transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.30">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">failure of creditor to comply with creditor's code of practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.31">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">wife's will overborne by husband's aggressive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.32">cited from="[2006] VSC 324">illegitimate pressure on part of husband.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 169">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 169">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 169">primary judge not satisfied that oral promises or representations made as conditions for entry into a written agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2006] NSWCA 169">whether factual errors shown.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">town planning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">reservation and acquisition of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">appropriate basis of valuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">whether time between reservation and acquisition determinative of possible zoning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">utility of expert knowledge gained after date land acquired</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">whether environmental significance precludes development potential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">extent of development potential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">whether landscape an integrated whole precluding development potential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">price payable by hypothetical purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">whether premium for development potential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[2006] WASC 82">whether interest payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 364">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 364">whether survey evidence is admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 364">whether exception to the hearsay rule applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 364">whether discretion should be exercised to exclude survey evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 364">non-compliance with practice note 11.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 152">evidence  expert evidence  admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 152">s76 and s79 evidence act 1995</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">butcher v lachlan elder realty pty limited  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">sale of waterfront property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">real estate agent published brochure containing survey diagram obtained from vendor's solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">survey diagram alleged to be inaccurate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">brochure contained a disclaimer by the real estate agent as to the reliability of information from other sources</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">purchasers intended to develop property in reliance on the survey diagram</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">whether real estate agent made a representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 60">whether real estate agent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or conduct "likely to mislead or deceive".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 175">trade practices (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 175">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 175">system of marketing used to sell residential units on gold coast</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 175">representation as to eight per cent capital growth rate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 175">accessorial liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 175">whether reversal of onus applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 175">whether onus on respondent to establish appellant had actual knowledge either that representation misleading or that representor had no reasonable grounds for making it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">collateral agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">warranties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">breach  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">misleading and deceptive conduct  contract for sale of seafood factory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">whether representations made as to availability of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">whether representations as to condition of plant and equipment and factory's "a" rating constitute warranties and misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">effect of failure to correct representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">whether reliance inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[2001] QSC 329">whether representations caused loss.  robinson v harman [1848] engr 135 ; (1848) 1 ex 850  commonwealth v amann aviation pty ltd (1991) 74 clr 64.  hill v tooth  co. ltd (1998) atpr 41-649</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">henville v walker  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">real estate transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">home unit development</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading representation by land agent to developer as to price which could be obtained for residential home units</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">incorrect estimate of likely costs of development made by developer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damages where misleading or deceptive conduct is but one of a combination of circumstances bringing about the loss ultimately suffered.  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">statutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">relevance of common law analogies when quantifying damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">identification of loss or damage required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">causation of loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damage caused "by conduct of" person in breach of s 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 94">local authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 94">misstatements to prospective purchaser concerning development potential of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 94">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 94">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 94">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">hg v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">sexual assault</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert evidence excluded under s 409b of crimes act 1900 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether evidence of prior sexual assault is evidence of prior sexual activity or experience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether s 409b applies only to evidence of consensual prior sexual activity or experience.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">admissibility of expert opinion under evidence act 1995 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">expert opinion must be within field of specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether expert opinion must be based on facts themselves admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether parts of opinion severable.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">refusal to grant adjournment for purposes of calling expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 2">whether refusal constituted miscarriage of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 116">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 116">obligation of confidence allegedly owed by expert to a former retaining party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 116">whether the expert and a subsequent retaining party should be restrained respectively from giving evidence and calling the expert to give evidence.   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 116">expert witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 116">whether evidence inadmissible as a "protected confidence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">cited from="[1998] NSWSC 116">whether expert and party wishing to call the expert as a witness should be restrained by injunction respectively from giving evidence and calling the expert to give evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">application for damages for misleading conduct in relation to an agreement for lease of a fruit shop at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">whether agreement for lease entered into in reliance upon representation found to have been made that a survey predicted a certain weekly turnover.   trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">whether appellant can establish reliance by showing that active interest in leasing fruit shop by reason of misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">whether representation had effect of "propelling" down the path of further inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">whether investigations by a representee which confirm or tend to confirm the representation cannot displace the operative effect of the initial representation so as to establish lack of reliance.   appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">conflict of evidence at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">whether finding of fact by trial judge based on credibility of witness should be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">discussion of principles.   appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">whether trial judge misapplied relevant legal principles.   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1336">whether procedural unfairness not to put certain matters to witness in cross-examination.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">representations as to prospective rental returns made prior to purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">whether representations of current belief as to future matter is a representation with respect to a future matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp33.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">whether application to amend pleadings after evidence closed and written submissions filed should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">lease of shopping centre premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">representations as to number of persons entering centre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">whether any reliance on representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">credibility and reliability of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">ss 52, 82 trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp34.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 99">whether mere possibility that misrepresentation might have induced a course of action may be sufficient to attract liability under s 82.  gould v. vaggelas [1985] hca 85 ; (1985) 157 clr 215  national australia bank limited v. cunningham (1990) atpr 41-047 discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">failure to inform</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">borrower unable to pay third party under building contract because merchant bank withdrew finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">builder continued work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether merchant bank under duty to inform builder it would not be paid.  contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">general principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">anticipatory breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether contract required developer to make future payments for building work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether lack of financing "wholly and finally disabled" developer from performing.  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">general principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether applicant under mistake as to legal rights.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.12">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">restitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.13">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether unjust enrichment sufficient to found claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp35.14">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether applicant under mistake as to legal rights.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 557">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 557">contract to purchase home unit "off the plan"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 557">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 557">whether relevant factual matrix may include silence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 557">application for relief under sub-s. 87(1a) of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 557">order declaring contract void ab initio</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 557">meaning of "loss or damage" in sub-s. 87(1a).  trade practices act 1974  rhone-poulenc agrochimie ag v uim chemical services pty ltd (1986) 12 fcr 477</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">action for damages to be commenced within three years after cause of action accrued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">conduct inducing giving of indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">accrual of cause of action to indemnifier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82.  federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">barred cause of action introduced by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">whether permitted by rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">trade practices act 1974(cth), s. 82(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court of australia act 1976(cth), s. 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp37.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 55">federal court rules 1979(cth), o. 13, r. 2(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">trade practices (consumer protection)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">lease of city office building</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">statements made by estate agent on behalf of lessor as to area to be let</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">statements made in context of rental to be charged per square metre or square foot of space</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">statements made in letter containing the statement "subject to survey" and a disclaimer clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">lease entered into without reference to the rental having been calculated according to the area to be let</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">discovery by lessee after rental review that area substantially less than that stated orally and in correspondence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">whether lessor and estate agent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">significance of the words "subject to survey" and disclaimer clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">whether misleading or deceptive conduct occasioned lessee loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">cross-claims brought by lessor and estate agent against each other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">whether agent entitled to indemnity from principal for any amount for which it liable to lessor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.12">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">whether agent had acted negligently</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp38.13">cited from="[1992] FCA 206">whether negligence on part of agent would avoid the lessor's liability under an indemnity.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 289">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 289">applicant purchaser of restaurant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 289">liquor licence permitted trading to 2 am seven days per week</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 289">overriding council regulation restricted trading to 11 pm six days per week</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 289">whether failure to inform purchaser of council regulation misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 289">whether representation containing half-truth misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp39.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 289">whether principal of first respondent aiding abetting or knowingly concerned in the contravention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">actions for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">reliance on conduct constituting contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">nature and degree of required reliance.  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">essentials of action for negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">where economic or financial loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">careless advice, statements and non-disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">reliance on negligent statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.9">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">nature and degree of required reliance.  trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp40.10">cited from="[1990] FCA 310">s.52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">limitation of actions (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to actions founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">onus of proving fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.  practice and procedure (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to action founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">claim outside six year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">defence that action statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">no reply alleging fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">non-appearance of defendant at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">judgment for defendant on ground that no trust established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">finding of fraud on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp41.17">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">whether applicant has established substantial reputation in respect of words "equity access"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">whether words merely descriptive of financial product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">distinction between descriptive and fancy names discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">respondents' products distinguished from that of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp42.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 506">whether any real likelihood of misleading or deception as to business association.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">interest pursuant to s. 51a of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">section 52 of trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">misleading and deceptive conduct in connection with sale of restaurant business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">circumstances in which silence may constitute misleading conduct under s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">whether applicant had constructive notice of matters which solicitors acting for the applicant would have discovered if proper enquiries had been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">construction of special conditions in contract for sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">operation of exclusion clauses as a defence to an action under s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">circumstances in which order for restitution is appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">exercise of court's discretion under s. 87 of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp43.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 40">adequacy of damages as remedy.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">misleading or deceptive conduct by corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">liability of persons aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring or party to contravention by corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">whether knowledge of material facts necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">whether knowledge that facts constitute contravention necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp45.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">trade practices act 1974 (cth),ss. 52, 75b, 82</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 5">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 5">sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 5">opening hours</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 5">misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 5">whether relied on at point of purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp46.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 5">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">whether respondent engaged in misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">whether conduct "in trade or commerce"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">whether s.52 limited to conduct relating to consumers.  trade practices act 1974 s.52  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">whether in trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">whether pt v limited to consumers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">whether failure to disclose a fact the subject of a previous representation constitutes misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp47.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 252">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52 , pt v. (1) consideration of circumstances in which a failure to disclose a fact of which the vendor of the business became aware before contract and which was contrary to a representation as to the future which had previously been made constituted misleading and deceptive conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether publication of statements including statements of opinions made in ordinary course of publication of news (not being advertising material) can constitute misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of material constituting conduct for purposes of sub-s. 52(1) of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of incorrect information constituting misleading or deceptive conduct only if conduct contains or conveys a misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">some articles of news more readily to be taken as statements by newspaper than others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">disadvantages of stated case procedure.  trade practices act 1974 , ss. 4(2) , 80 , 52 (1), 53 (e), 82 , 84 85 (3), 87  federal court of australia act 1976 , sub-s. 25(6)  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">publication of statements including statements of opinion in ordinary course of publication of newspaper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">whether statements convey misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp48.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 180">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 4(2). held: (1) publication of statements, including statements of opinion, made in the ordinary course of the publication of a newspaper can constitute misleading and deceptive conduct within the trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52. there is no definable boundary between conduct which is misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive and material which is defamatory; defamatory material does not fall outside the operation of s. 52(1) merely by reason of its being defamatory.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp49.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">conduct likely to mislead or deceive to whether conducting restaurant under a name similar to that of another restaurant was such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp50.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">whether reputation in another country is relevant.  passing-off.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">false or misleading statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">lease of shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">subsisting claim by lessor in supreme court  secns 52(1), 53a(1)(b), 82 trade practices act 1974 .  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">lease of shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">statements by agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">false or misleading statement concerning lease of shop</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">supreme court action by lessor for possession, rent and charges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp51.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 35">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 , 53a, 82 . the applicants sought damages under s. 82 of the trade practices act 1974 from the respondents in respect of alleged breaches of ss. 52 and 53a thereof. in august 1979 the applicants entered into a lease for a three-year term of a shop in a shopping centre from the first respondent. the applicants alleged certain oral statements by a servant of the second respondent, agents for the owners of the centre, made in the course of explaining to them characteristics of the shop and the terms of the proposed lease. by a writ issued out of the supreme court of victoria in may 1980 the first respondent had claimed possession and arrears of rent and other charges. the applicants had surrendered the lease. the respondents filed a joint defence and appeared by the same counsel.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">use of trade mark "big mac" in respect of goods being a trade mark of another corporation in respect of a different class of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">public misapprehension as to the limits of the corporation rights in respect of the name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">whether conduct creating mere confusion is conduct which is misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">whether advertisement represented that a corporation had a sponsorship approval or affiliation which it did not have.  trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">sections 52(1) , 53 (c) and 53 (d)  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">use of name "big mac" in respect of goods being trade mark of another corporation in respect of different class of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">public misapprehension as to limits of corporation's rights in respect of name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">whether conduct creating mere confusion is conduct which is misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">whether advertisement represented that corporation had sponsorship, approval or affiliation which it did not have</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp52.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 159">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 (1), 53 (c), (d). mcdonald's was a fast food retailer which advertised one of its products as a "big mac" hamburger, and this name had become exceptionally well known to the public. mcwilliam's, a wine producer, published advertisements which showed three two-litre wine bottles and a wine writer who said "i call it the 'big mac'".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">name similar to that of company with established business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 (3), 52 *, 80 **, 82 .  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp53.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">principles to be applied.   * trade practices act 1974 (cth), s, 52 is set out at p. 22, post.  ** the relevant provisions of s. 80 are set out at pp. 221-222, post.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.0">cited from="[1961] HCA 65">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.1">cited from="[1961] HCA 65">statements made by person concerning bodily symptoms and sensations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.2">cited from="[1961] HCA 65">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.3">cited from="[1961] HCA 65">statements made by patient to medical practitioner as basis for expert opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp54.4">cited from="[1961] HCA 65">necessity for proof of facts upon which opinion based.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp55.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">representation as to a future matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">reasonable ground for the belief  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">novation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">merchantable quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp56.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 136">fitness for purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">s 43 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">non-party costs sought by successful first and second respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">wife of second applicant to substantive proceedings provided financial support for litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">whether jurisdiction to order non-party costs spent after entry of judgment in substantive proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">factors relevant to exercise of discretion to award non-party costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">whether non-party played an active part in the conduct of the litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">non-party to benefit financially if applicants' claim had been successful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp57.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 498">significance of the knight principles   held : notice of motion seeking the award of non-party costs against the wife of the second applicant dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">representations as to future matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">no reversal of onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">need to adduce evidence to the contrary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">aiding and abetting contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">contract for sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">implied term as to fitness for purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp58.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">business efficacy</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 136" id="cs0">The principles relevant to the construction and application of this provision were not put in question in the present proceeding. Conduct, it may thus be noted, is " likely to mislead or deceive " if there is a " real or not remote chance or possibility regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty per cent ": Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 180 ; (1984) 2 FCR 82 at 87 per Bowen CJ, Lockhart and Fitzgerald JJ (applying Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union [1979] FCA 85 ; (1979) 42 FLR 331 at 346 per Deane J and Sheen v Fields Pty Ltd (1984) 58 ALJR 93). See also Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364 at [97] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 498" id="cs1">In Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364 , delivered 5 September 2008, the background facts to the proceedings are described in detail. In that judgment I ordered that the amended application filed by the applicants on 16 February 2006 be dismissed, and that the cross-claim filed by the first and second respondents on 5 June 2007 be allowed. Subsequently in Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 8) [2008] FCA 1556 , delivered 17 October 2008, I ordered that, with the exception of a number of costs incurred by the applicants in relation to interlocutory applications, the applicants pay the costs of the first and second respondents, such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed. In so ordering I rejected the claim of the first and second respondents that their costs be paid by the applicants on an indemnity basis.  It is not in dispute that the orders of the Court of 5 September 2008 and 17 October 2008 have been entered. The applicants have claimed that the issue of jurisdiction arose because, following the entry of those orders, the jurisdiction of the Court has been spent in relation to costs in these proceedings. In summary, the applicants' argument is: Judgment was given in favour of the first and second respondents in the primary proceedings on 5 September 2008 ( Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364). This notice of motion was filed on 26 September 2008. On 17 October 2008 in Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 8) [2008] FCA 1556 all outstanding costs issues were dealt with, and, subject to a number of reserved interlocutory costs, the first, second and third applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents. It became clear during the primary proceedings that, when considering the history of events culminating in the proceedings and all matters concerning the applicants, the second applicant played a pivotal role. All decisions, all discussions, and all negotiations were made, had and conducted by the second applicant on his own behalf and on behalf of the first and third applicants. The position is clouded by the assignment of causes of action, an issue to which I will return shortly, however prima facie the actual authority to make all decisions with respect to the conduct of litigation in the primary proceedings remained with the second applicant because of his historical role and his position as sole director and shareholder of the first applicant, and the sole director of the third applicant. Indeed as I found in the primary judgment, the second applicant was, at all material times, the directing mind and will of the first and third applicants ( Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364 at [9] ). In light of these findings, was the role of Mrs Tracy such that an award of costs with respect to these proceedings should be made against her? </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1480" id="cs2">84 Conduct is " likely to mislead or deceive " if there is a " real or not remote chance or possibility regardless of whether it is less or more than fifty per cent ": Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Ltd [1984] FCA 180 ; (1984) 2 FCR 82 at 87 per Bowen CJ, Lockhart and Fitzgerald JJ (applying Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australian Meat Industry Employees' Union [1979] FCA 85 ; (1979) 42 FLR 331 at 346 per Deane J; Sheen v Fields Pty Ltd (1984) 58 ALJR 93) ; Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364 at [97] . A corporation's state of mind is immaterial in making out a case of misleading or deceptive conduct. In Global Sportsman Pty Ltd v Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd [1984] FCA 180 ; (1984) 2 FCR 82 at 88 the Full Court relevantly observed:
 If a corporation is alleged to have contravened s 52(1) by making a statement of past or present fact, the corporation's state of mind is immaterial unless the statement involved the state of the corporation's mind. Whether or not s 52(1) is contravened does not depend upon the corporation's intention or its belief concerning the accuracy of such statement, but upon whether the statement in fact contains or conveys a meaning which is false; that is to say whether the statement contains or conveys a misrepresentation. Most commonly, such a statement will contain or convey a false meaning if what is stated concerning the past or present fact is not accurate; but a statement which is literally true may contain or convey a meaning which is false. See also: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Hadgkiss [2007] FCAFC 197 at [79] ---[83] [2007] FCAFC 197 ; , 248 ALR 169 at 182---3 per Buchanan J. The liability created by s 52 , it must also be recalled, was not " designed for the benefit of persons who fail, in the circumstances of the case, to take reasonable care of their own interests ": Elders Trustee and Executor Co Ltd v E G Reeves Pty Ltd [1987] FCA 332 ; (1987) 78 ALR 193 at 241 per Gummow J. See also: Parkdale Custom Built Furniture Pty Ltd v Puxu Pty Ltd [1982] HCA 44 ; (1981) 149 CLR 191 at 199 per Gibbs CJ ; Rawley Pty Ltd v Bell (No 2) [2007] FCA 583 at [212] , 61 ACSR 648 at 701 per Finn J; Webster v Havyn Pty Ltd [2004] NSWSC 227 at [73] per Palmer J. 94 Section 51A is a section which facilitates proof. But it is not a section which provides for an independent cause of action separate from s 52 or other sections of Part V of the 1974 Act: Citrus Queensland Pty Ltd v Sunstate Orchards Pty Ltd (No 7) [2008] FCA 1364 at [96] per Collier J. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 52 Doing acts</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 135 Replaceable rules</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 9 Effect of Act on other laws</title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 52 Adducing of other evidence not affected</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 55 Relevant evidence</title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 56 Relevant evidence to be admissible</title>
<title id="l8">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 59 The hearsay rule--exclusion of hearsay evidence</title>
<title id="l9">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 79 Exception: opinions based on specialised knowledge</title>
<title id="l10">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 47 Oral, video link, telephone and affidavit evidence</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 52 Interest on judgment</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l16">NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l17">NATIONAL PARKS AND WILDLIFE ACT 1974 - SECT 52 Revocation or compulsory acquisition of nature reserve</title>
<title id="l18">SUPREME COURT ACT 1995 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breaches of three awards</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breaches of several terms of each award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">breaches in relation to several employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">after application of course of conduct provision, 22 contraventions, falling into 11 categories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">whether aggregate of penalties imposed by magistrate excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 8">application of totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">admitted contraventions of transport workers award 1998</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">underpayment of wages to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">where multiple breaches of award arose out of single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">relevant considerations in determining level of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">penalty determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">failure to hold discussions with union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">failure to provide written information to union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">whether breaches of a single term or separate terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 374">whether to be paid to applicant or to organisation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 234">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 234">entitlement of employees to the benefit of provisions contained in an industrial award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 234">breaches of the award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 234">whether the judgment from the magistrates court of victoria was correct in finding that the award applied to the employment of the employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">collective agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">term requiring consultation with employees in respect of proposals that "will have an impact on employees' terms and conditions of employment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">proposal to implement privatisation of parts of state-owned railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">whether impact on terms and conditions of employees prior to ascertainment of how many and which employees will work in privatised enterprise  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">civil remedy provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">multiple agreements containing standard term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">whether single penalty should be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">whether "course of conduct" provision applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">whether failure to consult in relation to proposal to privatise relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 150">whether maximum penalty should be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">application for civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">breaches of the wr act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">applicable provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">underpayments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">breaches of freedom of association provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">threat to dismiss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">threat to injure in employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">breaches admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 956">considerations as to penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 905">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 905">admitted breaches of workplace relations act 1996 , transport workers award 1998 and workplace relations regulations 2006</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 905">underpayments, failure to keep records, failure to provide payslips</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 905">quantum of penalties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">underpayment of basic rates of pay and non payment of casual loadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">consideration of matters relevant to penalty.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">removal of a company in liquidation as an unnecessary and inappropriate respondent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">shop employees (state) award and annual holidays loadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">consideration of matters relevant to penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">contravention of civil remedy provisions of the workplace relations act and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">failure to pay annual leave entitlements on termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">failure to pay employee for time worked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">respondent companies placed in voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">admission of contravention by group general manager</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">liability to penalties established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 252">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 252">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 252">contraventions of award and collective agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 252">previous history of contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 252">need for specific deterrence.  penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 252">principles for fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 252">totality principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">where contraventions of workplace relations act and regulations admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">factors for consideration.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 208">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 208">application for civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 208">breaches of applicable provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 208">breaches admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 208">considerations as to penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">undefended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">no wages or superannuation paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">2 employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">deliberate conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">previous contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">breaches of s.182(1) and 185 (2) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) and clauses of napsa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">penalty determined.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">where breaches of award and workplace relations act admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">whether multiple breaches should be considered single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">application of totality principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 714">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 714">application for declarations and imposition of penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 714">agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 714">declarations made as agreed by parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 714">consideration of matters relevant to penalty.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] VMC 21" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 234" id="cs1">Maranoa also takes no issue with his Honour's general approach to the determination of penalty and his application of the totality principle. In that regard, see QR Limited v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2010] FCAFC 150 at (62), where Keane CJ and Marshall J said:

 Once the appropriate level for each of the contraventions has been assessed, it is necessary to consider the aggregate of those to form a view as to whether that aggregate is so out of proportion to the overall misconduct of the appellants as to constitute an unjust result: see Australian Opthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 ; (2008) 165 FCR 560 at [23] ; McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425 at [30] - [31].

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 150" id="cs2">Once the appropriate level for each of the contraventions has been assessed, it is necessary to consider the aggregate of those to form a view as to whether that aggregate is so out of proportion to the overall misconduct of the appellants as to constitute an unjust result: see Australian Opthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 ; (2008) 165 FCR 560 at [23] ; McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425 at [30] - [31]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 956" id="cs3">The first step for the Court is to identify the separate contraventions involved. Each breach of each separate obligation found in the AFPCS, the NAPSA is a separate contravention of a term of an applicable provision for the purposes of s.719. [11] 23. However, s.719(2) provides for treating multiple breaches, involved in a course of conduct, as a single breach. 24.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 905" id="cs4">3.13 The maximum penalty that may be imposed by the Court for each breach of the WR Regs is: $5,500 for each contravention by the First Respondent (as a body corporate); and $1,100 for each contravention by the Third Respondent (as an individual). Approach to determining penalty
 The applicant submitted, and the respondents accepted, that the proper approach to determining penalty in cases such as this is as follows: 4.2 The first step for the Court is to identify the separate contraventions involved. Each breach of each separate obligation found in the Award and the AFPCS in relation to the employee is a separate contravention of a term of an applicable provision for the purposes of section 719 of the WR Act [4] ; as is each breach of each applicable regulation for the purposes of regulation 14.4 of the WR Regs. However, section 719(2) of the WR Act and regulation 14.5 of the WR Regs provide for treating multiple breaches, involved in a course of conduct, as a single breach. 4.3 Secondly, the Court will then consider an appropriate penalty to impose in respect of each contravention (whether a single contravention or a course of conduct), having regard to all of the circumstances of the case.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 621" id="cs5">The first step is to identify each of the separate contraventions involved. Each breach of each separate obligation found in the Workplace Relations Act in relation to the employees is a separate contravention of a term of an applicable provision for the purposes of s.719 [17] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 599" id="cs6">The first step for the Court is to identify the separate contraventions involved. Each breach of each separate obligation found in the AFPCS, the NAPSA is a separate contravention of a term of an applicable provision for the purposes of s.719. [2] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 718" id="cs7">In those circumstances, it is incumbent on this Court to take into account the following principles in determining the question of penalty. Each separate contravention of the respective AWAs in respect of each employee has been identified. In the decision above, each separate contravention of the relevant AWA has been identified for the purposes of s.719: Gibbs v Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of City of Altona [1992] FCA 374 ; (1992) 37 FCR 216 at [223] ; McIver v Healy [2008] FCA 425 per Marshall J at [16]. The Court notes that s.719(2) provides for treating multiple breaches involved in the course of conduct as a single breach. Where two or more contraventions have common elements, this should be taken into account in considering what is an appropriate penalty in all the circumstances for each contravention and the Respondent should be penalised more than once for the same conduct.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VMC 26" id="cs8"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 252" id="cs9">The respondents seek then to rely on the decision in McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425 apparently to submit that nominal penalties should be imposed for some breaches and substantial penalties in respect of others. In the circumstances of this case with 148 breaches, the Court finds it appropriate to apply the same averaged penalty for each breach and then decide whether the penalties in total are appropriate to the conduct. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1255" id="cs10">Insofar as the respondents submitted that breaches of separate provisions arose out of the one course of conduct within the meaning of s.719(2) of the Act or reg.2.14.5, I reject this submission. Both s.719(2) and reg.2.14.5 operate in relation to two or more breaches of the same " term " or " provision " of the Act, Regulations or NAPSA and not to breaches of a number of different provisions of the Act, Regulations or NAPSA (see McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425). In Gibbs Gray J held that each separate obligation (in that case in an award) should be regarded as a term for the purposes of the predecessor to s.719, although, as his Honour also stated (at 223): The ascertainment of what is a term should depend not on matters of form, such as how the award maker has chosen to designate by numbers or letters the various provisions of an award, but on matters of substance, namely the different obligations which can be spelt out. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VMC 14" id="cs11"/>
<sentence from="[2009] VMC 10" id="cs12"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 208" id="cs13">The applicant submitted that: "6.18. There is a lack of evidence from TKM and Ms Loone explaining the underpayments. McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425 at [34] .McIver v 6.19. Any submission made by the respondent in mitigation of penalty which is not supported by evidence should not be given any weight. " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 38" id="cs14">The applicant does not accept that s.719(2) has any application to group the contraventions by the respondents concerning Ms Iglesias and Mr Elbehidi. It was submitted that the employees were engaged at quite different periods of time, such that the contraventions, whilst similar, did not arise out of the same course of conduct. I agree (see McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1028" id="cs15">In Gibbs v The Mayor, Councillors and Citizens of the City of Altona (1992) 37 FCR 216 Gray J stated at 223: The object of s 178(2) appears to be that a party bound by an award and pursuing a course of conduct involving repeated acts or omissions, which would ordinarily be regarded as giving rise to a series of separate breaches, should not be punished separately for each of those breaches. If such a party has pursued a course of conduct which gives rise to breaches of several different obligations, there is no reason why it should be treated as immune in respect of its breach of one obligation, merely because it has acted in breach of another. This reasoning leads to the conclusion that each separate obligation found in an award is to be regarded as a "term", for the purposes of s 178 of the Act. The ascertainment of what is a term should depend not on matters of form, such as how the award maker has chosen to designate by numbers or letters the various provisions of an award, but on matters of substance, namely the different obligations which can be spelt out. For these reasons, I incline to the view that each separate obligation imposed by an award is to be regarded as a "term", for the purposes of s 178 of the Act. If the different terms impose cumulative obligations or obligations that substantially overlap, it is possible to take into account the substance of the matter by imposing no penalty, or a nominal penalty, in respect of breaches of some terms, but a substantial penalty in respect of others.
(See also Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 ; (2007) 166 IR 14 at [17] ; McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425 at [16] --- [18] and National Tertiary Education Union v Central Queensland University [2008] FCA 481 at [42] --- [43]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 714" id="cs16">In Jordan v Mornington Inn Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1384 , Heerey J approached the case on the footing that he should fix a quantum of penalty and reduce that by a discount to give effect to the various mitigating factors present (which were few). In a subsequent decision in McIver v Healey [2008] FCA 425 , Marshall J does not appear to have adopted this approach. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">interlocutory proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">where respondents apply for stay of enforcement of four costs orders made in respect of interlocutory applications in the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">where respondents contend that the costs orders have the potential to stifle the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">where it cannot yet be determined where the merits of the proceeding lie</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">whether enforcement of costs orders should be stayed. equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">injunctions to preserve status quo and property pending determination of rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">mareva injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">where respondents' assets subject to mareva orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">where original orders permitted respondents to deal with assets to pay reasonable legal expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">where respondents seek variation of mareva orders to enable further payment of legal expenses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] QSC 316">whether mareva orders ought be varied uniform procedure civil rules 1999 (qld), r 737, r 740,</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">supreme court procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">queensland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">procedure under rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">where principal proceedings involve allegations of improper diversion of company funds by director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">where numerous complaints made about further amended statement of claim ("fasoc")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] QSC 213">whether certain paragraphs of fasoc should be struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 500">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 500">freezing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 500">sharply conflicting evidence as to underlying facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 500">whether serious question to be tried as to whether person against whom freezing order sought would be held liable to applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 500">whether freezing order should be discharged because applicants had not made full disclosure on original ex parte application for the order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] QSC 241">(sixth respondent) file no/s: sc no 6547 of 2005 division: trial division proceeding: application originating court: supreme court at brisbane delivered on: 1 september 2006 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 31 august 2006 judge: de jersey cj order: application of the respondent filed by leave on 31 august 2006 be dismissed, with costs to be assessed  corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] QSC 241">raising of capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] QSC 241">undertakings to courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] QSC 241">variations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] QSC 241">variations of undertakings given to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] QSC 241">whether a basis justifying variations sufficiently established counsel: p h morrison qc, with d j williams, for the first and second applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">membership, rights  remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">members' remedies  internal disputes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">proceeding on behalf of company by member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">statutory derivative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">procedural validity of derivative proceeding, under general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">summary determination thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">subject company incorporated in nigeria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">whether issue governed by nigerian or queensland law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">significance of receivership of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">standing of shareholders to bring proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">"justice", or 5 th , exception to the rule in foss v harbottle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2006] QSC 66">issue of forum non conveniens companies and allied matters act 1990 (nigeria) s 182, s 303, s 393, s 494</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>