Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">fair basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">sufficiency of description of invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">disclosure of best method of invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">date of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">false suggestion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">patent for treatment of erectile dysfunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">common general knowledge at priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">relevant prior art</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 224">use of evidence of overseas witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 220">198 the basis of the primary judge's decision was that there was no s 117 issue to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 220">all relevant admissions had been made. that is, the effect of fresenius' admissions and conduct led gambro to conclude, properly, that there was no suggestion that s 117 would not apply. whether the issue that fresenius sought to raise after delivery of the first decision, and now seeks to reagitate, was factual or legal, gambro's contention was that, had it known that there was such an issue, it would have run a case on authorisation. his honour accepted that contention. it follows that, even if the matters now sought to be raised are questions of law, the fact remains that, had gambro been aware that fresenius intended to raise an issue about the application of s 117, it would have run a different case. the primary judge thought that was a conclusive consideration. we see no error in his approach.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 90">date of hearing: 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 90">3 march 2005 date of judgment: 23 may 2005"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 145">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 145">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 145">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 145">components used to form building footings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 145">preliminary question relating to construction of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 145">relevance of documents, material and evidence concerning the history of the patent in the patents office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">lockwood security products pty ltd v doric products pty ltd  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">fair basing of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">patent for a door lock</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">specification included a consistory clause and described a preferred embodiment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">central claim essentially repeated consistory clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether claim was "fairly based" on the matter described in the specification within s 40(3) of the patents act 1990 (cth) or travelled beyond it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether test of fair basing involves consideration of "merit", "inventive step", "technical contribution to the art" or general "fairness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether grounds of invalidity under patents act must be kept distinct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">application for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">attempt to 'evergreen' pharmaceutical patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">whether new dosing regime for administering known substance for known purpose by known method without new pharmaceutical properties constitutes a manner of manufacture or an invention patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">application for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">whether claimed invention anticipated by information in commercial magazine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">magazine distributed internationally to existing and potential customers of commercial corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">recipients of magazine free in law and equity to make use of information contained therein</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">no evidence magazine available on request or for inspection in any public library</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">evidence of publication of contents of magazine via the internet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">whether information 'publicly available' so as to constitute 'prior art information' for the purposes of the patents act 1990 (cth) patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">application for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">dosage regime for administering alendronate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">whether method anticipated by prior art information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">application of reverse infringement test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">prior art information suggested testing of claimed invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">whether suggestion that disclosed invention be tested prevented disclosure from constituting anticipation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">whether suggestion of specific doses anticipated claimed invention  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">application for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">false suggestion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">patent specification contained statements alleged to misrepresent conclusions drawn from published article</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">no finding that any such misrepresentation intended to mislead</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2004] FCA 1282">whether patent obtained by fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">aktiebolaget hssle v alphapharm pty limited  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">obviousness or lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">patent for an oral pharmaceutical preparation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether invention obvious and did not involve an inventive step having regard to what was known or used in australia on or before priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">combination of integers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">preparation arrived at by group of pharmaceutical chemists after period of experimental research</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether hypothetical non-inventive worker in the field would have been led directly as a matter of course to pursue one avenue in expectation that it might well produce claimed invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">relevance of publications discoverable by "routine literature search" but not found to have been part of the common general knowledge in australia at the priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether invention obvious if it was apparent to a non-inventive skilled worker that it would be "worthwhile to try" each of the integers that was ultimately successfully used</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">relevance of attempts to replicate the process of invention by a skilled person aware of the desired result</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether attempts futile.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether decision of primary judge in respect of obviousness affected by legal error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">where conclusions of primary judge affirmed by full court of the federal court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">kimberly-clark australia pty ltd v arico trading international pty ltd  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether invention sufficiently described</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether complete specification includes claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether sufficiency determined by reference to skilled addressee.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">advertising campaign for pain relieving drug</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">application for interlocutory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">whether use of quotation from scientific paper is capable of being misleading or deceptive as a half-truth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">whether use of the word "everyday" is capable of being misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">whether claims of "equal tolerability" capable of being misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">principles to be applied to comparative advertising   interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">whether a serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">effect of injunction on momentum of advertising campaign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">effect of applicant remaining free to profit from powerful brand name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">relevance of public health.   equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">"unclean hands"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1995] FCA 1480">whether applicant taking wrongful advantage of its market power for the purpose of increasing its market share.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">method claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">product claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">supply by defendant to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">fair basing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">alleged prior publication in 1907</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">effect thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">double claiming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">lack of title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">false suggestion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">advertisement for electric drill</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">television advertisement portraying the respondent's drill operating in opposition to a drill distributed by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">applicant's drill unidentified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">possibility that applicant's drill would be mistaken for another of the applicant's drills in relation to which the result of the contest would be different</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">possibility of overcoming this problem by superscription and "voice over" identifying the drill concerned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">film used in advertisement edited to reduce period before applicant's drill emitted smoke</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">no smoke emitted from respondent's drill, in contrast with test results on drill actually available on market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">significance of visual impression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">claim for corrective advertising</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1990] FCA 166">limited corrective advertising ordered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">proprietorship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">prior use by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">public use indicating connexion in course of trade between goods and user</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">overseas company seeking to interest local manufacturer in new cigarette brand supplies cigarette packets and advertising material bearing name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">trade marks act 1955 (cth), s. 40(1).  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensing agreement relating to manufacture and sale of brand of cigarettes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensor subsequently developing new variety of brand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether implied term that licensee would not hinder development of line extension of brand.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">fiduciary relationships</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensing agreement relating to manufacture and sale of brand of cigarettes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensor develops new brand and seeks to interest licensee in manufacture and sale of it in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">supply of samples and advertising material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether fiduciary relationship between parties in relation to trade name of new brand.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">unfair competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">unfair trading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether general cause of action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">applicant and respondent distribute instant coffee in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">respondent introduces glass "apothecary" jars substantially the same as those already in use by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">respondent initiates television advertising campaign</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">whether such advertisement represents that the respondent's instant coffee is not imported</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">whether such advertisement represents that the applicant's coffee is at least twice as expensive as other coffees, in particular the respondent's</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">whether either representation false, misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">whether the respondent's jars together with their labels are misleading or deceptive.  trade practices act (cth.) 1974 ss. 52, 53(e)  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">applicants and respondent each distributors of instant coffee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">respondent introducing "apothecary" jars and labels similar to those used by applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">television advertisement representing applicants' coffee as more expensive than respondent's coffee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">television advertisement stating that applicants' coffee was imported so as to falsely imply that respondent's coffee was not</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">whether respondent's packaging and television advertisement amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1981] FCA 152">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 , 53 (e). the applicants and the respondent were distributors of different brands of instant coffee imported into australia. the respondent commenced to market its coffee in "apothecary" jars, as the applicants had done for some time; it altered its labels to a colour scheme similar to that of the applicants' labels; and it commenced to broadcast a television advertisement which showed its coffee and the applicants' coffee and drew unfavourable comparisons between the two.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">counterclaim for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">combination patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">patents act 1952 (cth) s. 100 (1) (e).  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">expert witness appointed by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">questions submitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1980] HCA 9">high court rules, o. 38, rr. 2, 3 (1), 5 (2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">counterclaim for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">prior user</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">prior publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">patents act 1952 (cth), s. 100 (1) (e), (g).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] QSC 138">citation: mack innovations (australia) pty limited  anor v rotorco pty limited  anor [2010] qsc 138 parties: mack innovations (australia) pty limited acn 111 989 170 first plaintiff grid services pty limited acn 111 691 288 second plaintiff v rotorco pty limited trading as leading edge helicopters acn 065 624 053 first defendant john edward caldwell second defendant file no/s: bs 3346 of 2009 division: trial division proceeding: application originating court: supreme court at brisbane delivered on: 6 may 2010 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: 18 december 2009 judge: mcmurdo j order: the application for summary judgment upon paragraph 2 of the counterclaim is dismissed. the application to strike out paragraph 2.2 of the plaintiff's answer to the counterclaim is dismissed.  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] QSC 138">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] QSC 138">patent applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] QSC 138">generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2010] QSC 138">where the plaintiff made a provisional patent application within the period prescribed by s 24(1) of the patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2010] QSC 138">whether the term "patent application" within that section includes a provisional patent application. acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) s 36(2) patents act 1990 (cth) sch 1, ss 7 , 24 (1), 29 , 38 , 40 , 49 patents regulations 1991 (cth) regs 2.2(d), 2.3(1)(c), 3.10 cadbury schweppes pty ltd v wm. wrigley jr company [2008] apo 20 nsi dental pty ltd v university of melbourne [2006] fca 1216 counsel: g handran for the plaintiffs a musgrave for the defendants solicitors: hemming  hart lawyers for the plaintiffs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">construction of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of the relevant field of art</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of the skilled addressee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of grammatical questions and syntax of the object statement contained in the specification    intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of whether a contended infringing spring clutch achieves the same functionality of a spring clutch of claim 13 of the patent in suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of grounds of revocation including lack of clarity, inutility, lack of novelty and false suggestion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">application claiming infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether respondent infringed the applicant's patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where respondents manufactured and sold road safety barriers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether the guard member on the road barrier is "mounted on" the barrier elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where guard member is not connected flush to the barrier elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where guard members are connected to barrier elements by use of brackets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where guard members are mounted on the barrier elements notwithstanding that they are proud of the surfaces of the barrier elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where guard member need not be in direct contact with the side walls of the barrier elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where applicant's patent is infringed if the patent is valid  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">application claiming infringement of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether respondent infringed the applicant's patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where respondents manufactured and sold road safety barriers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether the guard member connected to the barrier elements "overlies the side walls of at least two adjacent barrier elements"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where guard member is not connected flush to the barrier elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where guard member extends longitudinally over at least two barrier element side walls</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.16">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where guard member need not be in direct contact with the side walls of the barrier elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.17">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where applicant's patent is infringed if the patent is valid  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.18">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">cross-claim claiming applicant's patent is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.19">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether applicant's patent is invalid by virtue of lack of novelty due to prior publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.20">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where a us patent is identified as substantially similar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.21">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether us patent is similar enough to constitute lack of novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.22">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether there is a physical connection between reinforcing metal pipes and barrier elements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.23">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where the frame structure is securely mounted to the barrier</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.24">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where the us patent anticipates the applicant's patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.25">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where the applicant's patent is invalid for want of novelty  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.26">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">cross-claim claiming applicant's patent is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.27">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether applicant's patent is invalid by virtue of lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.28">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether the applicant's patent is invalid on the grounds that it is not a patentable invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.29">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where the incorporation of an additional guard member to inhibit or prevent damage to interlocking barrier elements results in an invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.30">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where the applicant's patent is a patentable invention  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.31">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">cross-claim claiming applicant's patent is invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.32">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether applicant's patent is invalid by virtue of lack of clarity in the patent claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.33">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where the patent claim is sufficiently clear  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.34">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">claim under section 52 of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.35">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">whether actions of the respondents breached section 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.36">citing from="[2008] FCA 314">where claim deferred until determination of patent claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">appeal from decision of a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">discretion to award costs under s 43(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">factors in exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where respondents to claim of unjustified threats brought cross-claim for infringement of patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where new parties joined much later as respondents to cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where cross-claim not actively defended by newly joined cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where defence of inactive cross-respondents denied infringement and validity of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where cross-claimants successful against all cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where active and inactive cross-respondents made liable jointly and severally for cross-claimant's costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where primary judge held it to be settled law that liability for payment of costs order ordinarily joint and several</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where primary judge considered whether inactive cross-respondents raised a separate and distinct defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">whether inactive cross-respondents submitting parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">whether exercise of discretion to award costs miscarried held: inactive cross-respondents not submitting parties in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">discretion to award costs pursuant to s 43(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) is broad</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.15">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">no automatic rules for exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.16">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">need for order to be just in circumstances of particular case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.17">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">lack of separate and distinct defence not determinative of whether liability for payment of costs order should be joint and several</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.18">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">exercise of discretion miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.19">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">no sufficient basis for making inactive cross-claimants liable for costs of proceedings in period prior to their joinder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.20">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">defence of inactive cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.21">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">cross-claimants had to prove case in greater detail in any event because of stance of active cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.22">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.23">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 5">liability of inactive cross-respondents to pay costs reduced to 10 percent on joint and several basis with active cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">whether csiro exempt from operation of freedom of information act 1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">whether documents required are in request of its commercial activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">whether documents are in relation to documents in respect of its commercial activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">respondent exempt from operation of freedom of information act 1982 in relation to documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">further consideration adjourned.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1787">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1787">revocation of later patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1787">selection patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1787">whether patent obtained by false suggestion or misrepresentation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1787">whether claimed invention is a patentable invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1787">whether claimed invention is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of statute of monopolies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1787">whether claimed invention is useful</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] QSC 138" id="cs0">But since the hearing, counsel for the defendants has drawn my attention to NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne [7] , which is against the defendants' argument. Wrigley Jr Company [2008] APO 20 NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne [2006] FCA 1216 COUNSEL: G Handran for the plaintiffs A Musgrave for the defendants SOLICITORS: Hemming  Hart Lawyers for the plaintiffs
McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the defendants
 [1] The first plaintiff is the registered patentee of standard patent no.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 222" id="cs1">The final ground of revocation involves a contention that SBriggs obtained the patent by fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation ([11], s 138(3)(d) of the Patents Act ) and that the amendment to the patent ([12], [17], [18], [56] and [57]; s 138(3)(e) of the Patents Act ) was also obtained by fraud, false suggestion or misrepresentation. The question is whether the conduct of SBriggs said to bear the character required by the section, materially contributed to the Commissioner's decision to grant the patent or amend the claims. It is sufficient if the conduct is a material inducing factor which led to either of those outcomes ( Prestige Group (Australia) Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc. (1990) 26 FCR 197 ; Pfizer (supra); JMVB Enterprises Pty Ltd v Camoflag Pty Ltd (2005) 67 IPR 68). Sections 138(3)(d) and 138 (3)(e) do not require proof of a deliberate intention on the part of the applicant for the patent (or amendment) to deceive the Commissioner ( Pfizer ). If the representation is based upon a belief, it is relevant to consider whether the belief is false or not held reasonably ( NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne [2006] FCA 1216 ; (2006) 69 IPR 542). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] APO 20" id="cs2">In this regard, the applicant referred to the Federal Court decision in NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne [2006] FCA 1216 ; (2006) 69 IPR 542 at paragraph 125. This decision relied on the definition of "patent application" in section 29(2) [13] to construe the same term in section 24 to include an Australian provisional application. The applicant then reasoned that this definition automatically extended to foreign provisional applications because of Australia's obligations under TRIPS and the USFTA agreements to accord equal privileges to foreign based applicants.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 34" id="cs3">151 The transcript of the argument in the appeal is illuminating. When Mr Hess was asked why compound six had to "stand out", his answer was that otherwise it "does not become relevant". When challenged regarding that proposition, given that the requirement of relevance in s 7(3) seemingly involved a relatively low threshold, he referred to a passage in the judgment of Tamberlin J in NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne [2006] FCA 1216 ; (2006) 69 IPR 542 at [201] where his Honour stated:

 " I am not persuaded on the evidence of the skilled addressee(s) that it could have been reasonably expected that these three articles would have been ascertained by persons skilled in the relevant art before 12 March 1997. Nor am I satisfied that a skilled addressee would have been expected to treat them as relevantly a single source or that any particular attention would have been paid to them. "</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 314" id="cs4">This does not mean that the relevant person is to be a technician or person with only practical and non-academic qualifications. In fields such as chemistry, such a person can be a person or group with high level qualifications and a capacity for original research ( Aktiebolaget Hssle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59 ; (2002) 212 CLR 411 , [30] and NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne [2006] FCA 1216 , [151]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 5" id="cs5">23 His Honour heard the trial over 10 days. The primary judge, in substance, upheld all claims of infringement against, relevantly, the Probiotec parties. He found that the complex patent and the phosphopeptide patent were valid ( NSI Dental Pty Ltd v The University of Melbourne [2006] FCA 1216). He granted injunctions restraining all the cross-respondents (the NSI parties and the Probiotec parties) from infringing both patents or being accessorially involved in their infringement.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1569" id="cs6">Tamberlin J considered this provision in NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne : [126]

" 194 The reference to 'reasonably expected' in s 7(2), in my view, means that it is not simply a question of a person's capacity to use search tools and methods in order to locate information but rather whether, in the opinion of the Court, there is on the evidence a reasonable degree of expectation that the skilled person would have ascertained the information.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1787" id="cs7">66 In NSI Dental Pty Ltd v University of Melbourne [2006] FCA 1216 ; (2006) 69 IPR 542 ( 'NSI Dental' ) Tamberlin J said at 570 [151]:

 'At the outset, it is necessary to describe the attributes of the skilled addressee and the relevant patent area. The skilled addressee is a legal construct and is assumed to be a person, or team, who is "not 'particularly imaginative or inventive'": Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly and Co [2005] FCAFC 224 at [288] per French and Lindgren JJ. This does not mean that the addressee is a technician or person with only practical and non-academic qualifications. In fields such as chemistry, the addressee can be a person or group with high level qualifications and a capacity for original research: Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59 ; (2002) 212 CLR 411 at [30] . ' </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 7 Novelty and inventive step</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 18 Patentable inventions</title>
<title id="l4">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 24 Validity not affected by certain publication or use</title>
<title id="l5">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 29 Application for patent</title>
<title id="l6">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 40 Specifications</title>
<title id="l7">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 117 Infringement by supply of products</title>
<title id="l8">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 128 Application for relief from unjustified threats</title>
<title id="l9">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 138 Revocation of patents in other circumstances</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l11">NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l12">NATIONAL FOOD AUTHORITY ACT 1991 No. 118, 1991 - SECT 39 Confidential commercial information</title>
<title id="l13">PATENTS AMENDMENT ACT 2001 NO. 160, 2001 </title>
<title id="l14">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l15">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l16">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 53 False representations.</title>
<title id="l17">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">examination under s 25a of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">applicant claimed to be entitled to decline to answer questions on the ground that to do so may tend to incriminate him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">whether privilege against self-incrimination abrogated by s 30 of the act administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">right to representation by legal adviser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">examination under s 25a of the australian crime commission act 2002 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">examiner refused leave to applicant's nominated legal adviser to be present during examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">whether s 25a(3) qualified the entitlement of the applicant to be represented under s 25a(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 913">whether examiner properly exercised the power to exclude the legal adviser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">pelechowski v the registrar, court of appeal  courts and tribunals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">district court of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">asset preservation order made after judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">whether order beyond power.  courts and tribunals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">implied power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">asset preservation order made after judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">whether power necessary for the effective exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">relevance of express powers.  contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">district court of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">breach of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">order beyond power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">whether contempt committed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">whether order a nullity or effective until set aside.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">availability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1999] HCA 19">proceedings criminal in nature but not a criminal prosecution.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">matters of procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">trade practices commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">taking of evidence pursuant to notice under s.155(1) of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">order that witness not disclose evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">legal representation of witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">undertaking by legal representative not to disclose evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">powers of commission.   trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 889">ss. 155 , 163a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 565">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 565">investigation by australian securities commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 565">decision by investigator declining to allow the presence of the examinee's lawyer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 565">power of investigator to make that decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 565">circumstances in which that power may be used</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 565">exercise of power not justified on the evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 530">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 530">s.36 national companies and securities commission act 1979</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 530">direction that the hearing take place "in private"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 530">power of commission to make orders prohibiting the disclosure of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 530">proper scope of such an order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 530">access of witnesses and their solicitor to transcript</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 530">natural justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">criminal law (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">committal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">finding of prima facie case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">powers of magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">whether power to stay proceedings as abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">justices act 1902 (n.s.w.), s. 41(6).  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">appeal by crown from order staying committal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">comment by member of appeal court in previous case that prosecution of accused "obviously an appropriate use of the criminal law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">refusal to disqualify</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 45">reasonable apprehension of bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">sentencing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">union organiser took action to procure a stoppage of work on a building site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">whether trial judge took into account incorrect or irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">re-exercise of sentencing discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">declarations of contravention sought by parties by consent lacking certainty and precision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">principles governing crown appeals against sentence pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">sentencing appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">whether manifestly inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 65">determination of appropriate penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">application to cross-examine own witness under s.38 of the evidence act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">purpose of s.38</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">evidence unfavourable to the party calling the witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">meaning of "unfavourable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">whether evidence unfavourable, neutral or inconsistent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">discretionary considerations under ss.38(6) and 192 (2) of the evidence act 1995 (cth).  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 150">penalty proceeding.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 65" id="cs0">68 In our view, the trial judge failed to adequately address that the conduct he identified as having "positive aspects" and which he considered "could well be regarded as consonant with the main objects of the BCII Act", was in fact unlawful conduct under that Act: see ss 38 and 44(1) of the BCII Act. The conduct was unlawful because the respondents adopted means which were not consistent with the objects of the BCII Act, namely seeking to place undue pressure on Celltech to make an EBA. As Besanko J said in Bonan v Hadgkiss [2006] FCA 1334 ; (2006) 160 FCR 10 at [31] , [34] and [37] in relation to the BCII Act, the intention of Parliament is to be discerned from the provisions of the Act. In the present case, it appears that the trial judge considered some, but not all, of the provisions of the BCII Act or at the very least failed to adequately address those provisions of the Act which prescribed unlawful conduct, even if that conduct sought to achieve some stated object of the Act. As a result, the sentencing discretion miscarried.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 150" id="cs1">The ABCC Hearing was an examination under s.52(1)(e) of the BCI Act , conducted on 30 October 2008, that is, a little over six weeks after the alleged events of 12 September 2008. A copy of the ABCC Hearing Transcript was produced to the Court for the purposes of arguing the application. The Federal Court has held, in Bonan v Hadgkiss , [13] that the relevant ABCC Commissioner or delegate, who is conducting those proceedings has power in an ABCC Hearing to make directions with respect to the integrity of the evidence in those hearings, and to regulate and control the conduct of proceedings in such a hearing. It is apparent from the judgment in Bonan that the Federal Court came to the view that that was a power which was implied and not express. In this case, there was a non-disclosure order --- obviously, in the circumstances, exercised pursuant to the implied power --- and that non-disclosure order was withdrawn on 16 September 2009.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l2">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 3 Main object of Act</title>
<title id="l3">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 4 Definitions</title>
<title id="l4">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 38 Unlawful industrial action prohibited</title>
<title id="l5">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 49 Penalties etc. for contravention of civil penalty provision</title>
<title id="l6">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 52 ABC Commissioner's powers to obtain information etc.</title>
<title id="l7">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 53 Certain excuses not available in relation to section 52 requirements</title>
<title id="l8">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 55 Retention and copying etc. of documents</title>
<title id="l9">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 65 Protection of confidentiality of information</title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l11">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 25 Powers of court to extend to whole Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l12">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l14">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l15">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 90 of 1989 - SECT 22 Examination to take place in private</title>
<title id="l16">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 90 of 1989 - SECT 23 Examinee's lawyer may attend</title>
<title id="l17">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 No. 90 of 1989 - SECT 47 Disclosures to take place in private</title>
<title id="l18">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l19">NATIONAL CRIME AUTHORITY ACT 1984 No. 41, 1984 - SECT 25 Hearings</title>
<title id="l20">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l21">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 155 Power of Commission to obtain information, documents and evidence.</title>
<title id="l22">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l23">WORKPLACE RELATIONS ACT 1996 </title>
<title id="l24">Companies Act 1961 No 71 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">dalton v nsw crime commission  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">power with respect to service and execution throughout the commonwealth of civil and criminal process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">summons served under state law upon person in another state to attend state commission of inquiry with investigative functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">summons a "subpoena" for the purpose of the service and execution of process act 1992 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">"civil and criminal process"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">whether "civil and criminal process" includes process relating to purely investigative functions of tribunals which are not in aid of an adjudicative function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">whether s 76 of the service and execution of process act 1992 (cth) a valid exercise of commonwealth legislative power.  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">power with respect to service and execution throughout the commonwealth of civil and criminal process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">parties did not contend that such power is confined to process of the courts of the states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">whether the high court can nevertheless consider whether such power is so confined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">paramountcy of the constitution .  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">power with respect to service and execution throughout the commonwealth of civil and criminal process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">whether such power is confined to process of the courts of the states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">whether increased potential for infringement of liberty associated with extending such power to process of state non-court bodies is a consideration supportive of narrower construction of such power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">proliferation of state non-court bodies that issue process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 17">relevance to constitutional meaning of changing features of modern government.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">application to set aside examination summonses made pursuant to s596b of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether summonses satisfied the jurisdictional requirements of s596b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether claimants 'may be able to give information about the examinable affairs of the corporation'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">meaning of 'examinable affairs'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether s596b operates so as to exclude client legal privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">client legal privilege under the evidence act 1995 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether significant number of communications the subject of the summonses and orders for production were likely to be privileged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether summonses were oppressive or otherwise an abuse of process  privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">consideration of sections 117 and 118 the evidence act 1995 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether evidence act 1995 (nsw) or evidence act 1995 act (cth) applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether corporations act excludes operation of evidence act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether client legal privilege provides an immunity from answering questions under s596b of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether an examination is a 'proceeding' for the purposes of the evidence act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether the reports the subject of a possible claim for privilege obtained by solicitor acting on instructions of client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">consideration of use of solicitors to obtain reports as a mere 'stratagem' or 'sham'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether claimants agents of the client or agents of its solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">consideration of the definitions of 'agent', 'client' and 'lawyer' in s117 of the evidence act and under common law  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">order for production under part 36 rule 12 of the supreme court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether privilege attaches to documents the subject of the order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">consideration of part 36 rule 13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether significant number of communications the subject of the orders for production were likely to be privileged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 444">whether orders were oppressive or otherwise an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">decision to authorise an 'eligible applicant' to make an application for the issue of examination summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">whether asic required to give reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1509">whether asic required to provide discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 114">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 114">appeals against orders of a federal court judge allowing orders for the issue of summonses for examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 114">history and purpose of provisions empowering a court to summon a person for examination about a corporation's examinable affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 114">whether examination sought for an improper purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 114">whether purpose of examination was to benefit the corporation, its contributories or creditors.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">application by liquidator of corporation to examine a person about the corporation under part 5.9 of the corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">possible claim by corporation against valuer for professional negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">whether court has power to order valuer to produce policies of insurance in respect of the valuations on examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 921">whether this "relate(s) or will relate to the (corporation's) examinable affairs".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">law providing for incorporation of trading and financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">whether law with respect to corporations formed within limits of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">corporations act 1989 (cth), ss 114</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">125 , 156</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 2">158 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">public examination of director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">privilege against self-incrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">abrogation by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">power to give directions as to matters to be inquired into</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">whether court may excuse from duty to answer questions on ground that answer may incriminate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">inherent power of court to control proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">ability to reject question on ground that answer may incriminate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 21">companies (new south wales) code, s. 541.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">service tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">offences by defence members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">service offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">created by reference to offences against laws of australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">service offences triable by service tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">where tribunal takes service offence into consideration defence member not triable by civil court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">defence member not triable by civil court where acquitted or convicted of similar service offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">offence against law of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">trial on indictment to be by jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">whether service offences triable on indictment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51(vi) , 71 , 72 , 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), ss. 15a , 42</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1989] HCA 12">defence force discipline act 1982 (cth), ss. 3(1) , 61 , 129 , 190.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">trade practices commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">to require information to be furnished and documents produced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">civil proceedings pending in respect of same matter to which commission not party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">whether power exercisable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">the constitution (63  vict. c. 12), ch. iii</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 65">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 155(1) , (7), 157 , 159 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">registrar's summons to attend to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">trustee seeking to examine liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">liquidator having no personal knowledge of bankrupt or bankrupt's affairs save through his liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">liquidator not unwilling to assist trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">whether compulsory process required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth.), s. 81.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">summons issued pursuant to s. 81 of bankruptcy act 1966 (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">locus standi of liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1979] FCA 87">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth.), s. 14(5). on the application of a trustee in bankruptcy the registrar issued two summonses pursuant to s. 81 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth.) addressed to the applicant (a.) a liquidator of a company duly appointed by a state supreme court. each summons required a. to attend and give evidence and produce certain documents alleged to be in his custody or power. a. had no personal knowledge of the bankrupt or his affairs except such knowledge as had been derived in the course of his duties as a liquidator. a. applied to set aside the summonses pursuant to s. 14(5) of the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1977] HCA 62">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1977] HCA 62">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1977] HCA 62">trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1977] HCA 62">statute empowering court or registrar to order removal from register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1977] HCA 62">whether judicial or administrative power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1977] HCA 62">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss.76 (ii.), 77 (iii.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1977] HCA 62">trade marks act 1955 (cth), s. 23 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">state court invested with federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">jurisdiction in matrimonial causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">maintenance, settlements and costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">discretionary powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">ambit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">the constitution (63  64 vict., c. 12), ss. 71 , 77 (iii.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">matrimonial causes act 1959-1966 (cth), ss. 23 (2), 84, 86, 87 (1), 125.  matrimonial causes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">federal jurisdiction vested in state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">powers in respect of maintenance, settlements and costs ancillary to main relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">whether functions beyond scope of judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">the constitution (63  64 vict., c. 12), s. 77 (iii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">matrimonial causes act 1959</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 54">1966 (cth), ss. 23 (2), 84, 87 (1), 125.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">territories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">courts of territories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">supreme court of australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">whether "federal court" or court "exercising federal jurisdiction"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">australian capital territory supreme court act 1933-1968 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 71 , 73 , 122 .  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">appeal from supreme court of australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">whether appeal as of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1971] HCA 10">the constitution (63  64 vict, c. 12), ss. 71 , 73 , 122 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">territories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">"seat of government"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">source of legislative power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">courts of territories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">magistrate's court in australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">jurisdiction to hear charge of offence against statute applying indifferently to states and territories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">whether magistrate must be appointed for life etc.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">"the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">"laws of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), covering cll. 3, 5, ss. 52 (i.) 71 , 72 , 73 , 76 , 111 , 122 , 125</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">seat of government (administration) act 1910</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">1959 (cth), ss. 11, 12</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">seat of government acceptance act 1909-1938 (cth), s. 9</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">post and telegraph act 1901-1961 (cth), ss. 107, 151</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">court of petty sessions ordinance 1930-1961 (a.c.t.), ss. 5 (1), 7, 18.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">source of original jurisdiction as to territories</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">case stated by supreme court of australian capital territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 76 (i.), (ii.), 122</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.21">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">acts interpretation act 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.22">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">1964 (cth), s. 15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.23">cited from="[1965] HCA 66">australian capital territory supreme court act 1933-1960 (cth), s. 13*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">industrial arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">court of conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">arbitral power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">combination of powers in one body</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xxxv.), (xxxix.), 71 , 72 , 73 , 76 (ii.), 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1952 (no. 13 of 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">no. 34 of 1952), ss. 29 (1) (b), (c), 29a.  industrial law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">court of conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">vested with judicial and arbitral powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">combination of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">constitutional validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xxxv.), (xxxix.), 71 , 72 , 73 , 76 (ii.), 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1952 (no. 13 of 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">no. 34 of 1952), ss. 29 (1) (b), (c), 29a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">powers of federal parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">powers conferred upon registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">deputy registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">direction by attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">debtor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">power of registrar or deputy registrar to make</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">statutory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">"bankrupt"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 71 , 72 , 76 , 77 (iii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1954] HCA 46">bankruptcy act 1924-1950, ss. 4, 12 (2) (5) (6), 18, 20 (3), 24 (1) (a), 52 (i), 54, 57, 119, 209 (g), 214 (1), 217 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">administration under deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">summons for examination issued under s 596b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">applicant for summons an "eligible applicant" by virtue solely of asic authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">no time limit express or implied to "eligible applicant" status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">deed of company arrangement terminated before any examination appointed or conducted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">whether summons may be enforced and examination conducted after termination of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">court empowered by commonwealth law to order that person submit to examination about affairs of company subject to deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">examination inquisitorial in nature and of itself not judicial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">whether power to compel examination incidental to judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 696">whether court given general supervisory jurisdiction with respect to company subject to deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1211">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1211">judicial review of refusal to grant protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1211">whether tribunal failed to make relevant enquiries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1211">relevant considerations when considering reasonableness of tribunal conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">external administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">examinable affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">examining a person about a corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">production of documents in a person's possession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">application for leave to issue summons to examine a person about the examinable affairs of a company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">whether the proposed examination is oppressive, unfair or an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">whether the production of documents is sought for the purpose of obtaining information independently of the examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 596b , s 597d(2), s 597(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">turns on own facts  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">courts' jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.11">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">examinable affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.12">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">examining a person about a corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.13">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">whether the power conferred by s 596b corporations act 2001 (cth) is a judicial power or is ancillary or incidental to the exercise of judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.14">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">corporations act 2001 (cth) s 596b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.15">citing from="[2008] WASC 75">turns on own facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">authorisation by asic of shareholders as eligible applicants for s 596a and s 596b of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">no notice to proposed examinees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">legitimate expectations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">whether asic took into account irrelevant consideration, failed to take into account relevant consideration and erred in law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">proceeding dismissed administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">authorisation by asic of shareholders as eligible applicants for s 596a and s 596b of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">no notice to proposed examinees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.11">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">legitimate expectations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.12">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">whether asic took into account irrelevant consideration, failed to take into account relevant consideration and erred in law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.13">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">proceeding dismissed evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.14">citing from="[2007] FCA 59">submissions for respondent did not waive legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">intervenor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">examination proceedings under corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">powers of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">constitutional validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">intervention by australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">whether intervenor liable to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">substantive participation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 36">costs awarded against asic and apportioned with other respondents</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 696" id="cs0">19 I mention these matters concerning the effects of termination of the deed as a precursor to a consideration of the decision of French J in Highstoke Pty Ltd v Hayes Knight GTO Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 13 ; (2007) 156 FCR 501. His Honour there held that the inquisitorial processes of Part 5.9 were not available in relation to a company that was not and had never been subject to any form of external administration or other process contemplated by Chapter 5. ASIC had granted an authority to Highstoke (a company) causing it to come within paragraph (e) of the s 9 definition of "eligible applicant" in relation Hayes Knight, its predecessor as trustee for debenture holders of Performance Finance. Highstoke, on behalf of the Performance Finance debenture holders, had commenced proceedings against Hayes Knight alleging misfeasance as trustee. Upon application made to the Federal Court, it obtained the issue of an examination summons in respect of one O'Brien, a director of Hayes Knight, with a view to investigating Hayes Knight's professional indemnity insurance. French J ordered that the examination summons be discharged and that the authority granted by ASIC to Highstoke be quashed.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] QCA 131" id="cs1">[14] Reference was also made to discussions of the nature of judicial power in Highstoke Pty Ltd v Hayes Knight GTO Pty Ltd and Another [15] and Re Sons of Gwalia Ltd; Ex Parte Love, [16] cases involving the issue of summonses for examinations under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1211" id="cs2">The applicant relied upon the decisions of Wickramasinghe v The Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1558 , SZJBA v The Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1592 ; (2007) 164 FCR 14 ; (2007) 98 ALD 270 and Minister for Immigration v Le [2007] FCA 1318; (2007) 164 FCR 151; (2007) 242 ALR 455 ; (2007) 97 ALD 112 . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] WASC 75" id="cs3">22 The operation of s 596B is not confined to liquidators. Nevertheless, the power to issue examination summonses is not at large; the provisions are only applicable to companies in some form of external administration and cannot be used in relation to solvent companies: Highstoke Pty Ltd v Hayes Knight GTO Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 13 ; (2007) 156 FCR 501 [87], [89] (French J).
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 59" id="cs4">The private examination of persons pursuant to Div 2 of Pt 3 of the ASIC Act in aid of an investigation by ASIC pursuant to Div 1 of Pt 3 has a different history, role and purpose from examinations pursuant to Div 1 of Pt 5.9 of the Corporations Act . The latter are a long standing feature of insolvency administration, the history, nature and purpose of which have been analysed in many cases --- most recently by Lander J in Evans v Wainter Pty Limited [2005] FCAFC 114 ; (2005) 145 FCR 176 and French J in Highstoke Pty Ltd v Hayes Knight GTO Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 13 and need not be repeated.  It is also submitted that the common law right to maintain silence will be encroached upon. It is not clear to me that the so called common law right to silence is a right or interest in the sense outlined in Annetts v McCann [1990] HCA 57 ; 170 CLR 596 . The only authority that was cited to support that proposition, apart from the reference in the passage from the reasons of Dawson J in Johns v Australian Securities Commission 178 CLR at 437, was that of Branson J in Re Cortaus Ltd (in liq); Sheahan v Joye (No 2) (1996) 20 ACSR 576 at 578. That was an examination of the balance of convenience on an application for a contested adjournment and did not involve the present issue. There is merit in the submission by counsel for ASIC that it is hardly correct to say that an officer of a company that is in external administration has any right to silence concerning the affairs of the company. On the contrary, the officer is bound by statute, when called upon, to provide information. That has been the case for a very long time ( Rees v Kratzmann [1965] HCA 49 ; 114 CLR 63 ; Evans v Wainter 145 FCR per Lander J at [44]---[82]; per French J in Highstoke Pty Ltd v Hayes Knight GTO Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 13 at [46] ---[78]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 36" id="cs5">5 On 16 January 2006 I delivered judgment discharging the examination summons and quashing the decision made by ASIC on 3 August 2005. ASIC and Highstoke were directed to pay the costs of the judicial review proceedings. Costs were reserved until today on the application to discharge the summons. The parties were given an opportunity to make submissions as to the costs in the Examination Proceedings --- Highstoke Pty Ltd v Hayes Knight GTO Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 13. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 13 Reasons for decision may be obtained</title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15A Construction of Acts to be subject to Constitution</title>
<title id="l4">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l5">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 11 Corporations legislation functions and powers and other functions and powers</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 50 Related bodies corporate</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 53 Affairs of a body corporate</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 64A Entities</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 64B Entities connected with a corporation</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 283AA Requirement for trust deed and trustee</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 283AB Trust deed</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 283AC Who can be a trustee</title>
<title id="l15">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 283AD Existing trustee continues to act until new trustee takes office</title>
<title id="l16">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 283AE Replacement of trustee</title>
<title id="l17">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 435C When administration begins and ends</title>
<title id="l18">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 436A Company may appoint administrator if board thinks it is or will become insolvent</title>
<title id="l19">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 436B Liquidator may appoint administrator</title>
<title id="l20">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 436C Chargee may appoint administrator</title>
<title id="l21">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 513C Section 513C day in relation to an administration under Part 5.3A</title>
<title id="l22">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596A Mandatory examination</title>
<title id="l23">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596B Discretionary examination</title>
<title id="l24">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596C Affidavit in support of application under section 596B</title>
<title id="l25">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596D Content of summons</title>
<title id="l26">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596E Notice of examination</title>
<title id="l27">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 596F Court may give directions about examination</title>
<title id="l28">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 597 Conduct of examination</title>
<title id="l29">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 597A When Court is to require affidavit about corporation's examinable affairs</title>
<title id="l30">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 597B Costs of unnecessary examination or affidavit</title>
<title id="l31">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 598 Order against person concerned with corporation</title>
<title id="l32">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 600A Powers of Court where outcome of voting at creditors' meeting determined by related entity</title>
<title id="l33">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 600F Limitation on right of suppliers of essential services to insist on payment as condition of supply</title>
<title id="l34">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601BC Applying for registration under this Part</title>
<title id="l35">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1381 Division has effect subject to Division 7 regulations</title>
<title id="l36">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l37">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]</title>
<title id="l38">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 71 Judicial power and Courts</title>
<title id="l39">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 72 Judges' appointment, tenure, and remuneration</title>
<title id="l40">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 122 Government of territories</title>
<title id="l41">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l42">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 78B Notice to Attorneys-General</title>
<title id="l43">SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l44">SERVICE AND EXECUTION OF PROCESS ACT 1992 - SECT 76 Order for leave</title>
<title id="l45">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l46">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES COMMISSION ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l47">COMPANIES ACT 1981 </title>
<title id="l48">COMPANIES ACT 1981 No. 89 of 1981 - SECT 249 Resolution requiring special notice</title>
<title id="l49">COMPANIES ACT 1981 No. 89 of 1981 - SECT 250 Resolutions of exempt proprietary companies</title>
<title id="l50">COMPANIES ACT 1981 No. 89 of 1981 - SECT 541 Examination of persons concerned with corporations</title>
<title id="l51">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 </title>
<title id="l52">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 No. 109 of 1989 - SECT 9 Dictionary</title>
<title id="l53">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 No. 109 of 1989 - SECT 541 Notification that company is in liquidation</title>
<title id="l54">CORPORATIONS ACT 1989 No. 109 of 1989 - SECT 597 Examination of persons concerned with corporations</title>
<title id="l55">CORPORATE LAW REFORM ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l56">INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l57">INTERPRETATION ACT 1987 - SECT 31 Acts and instruments to be construed so as not to exceed the legislative power of Parliament</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (GOODS AND SERVICES TAX) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l1">A NEW TAX SYSTEM (INDIRECT TAX AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) ACT (NO. 2) 1999 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>