Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">equitable charges and liens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">creditor pays company debt to enable work to be performed that returns a relatively larger sum to the liquidator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">whether creditor entitled to a lien for incontrovertible benefit to company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">whether payment a liquidator's priority expense under agency of necessity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">whether the rule in ex parte james; in re condon (1874) lr 9 ch app 609 appliescorporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">secured creditor without valuing security votes on adjournment motion by poll</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">whether voted her whole debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">whether failure to value through inadvertence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">whether taken to have surrendered security</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 139">corporations regulation 2001 (cth) 5.6.24(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">rescission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">right to rescind conferred by contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">whether to determine contract or to treat it as subsisting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">unequivocal conduct with knowledge of facts giving right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">exercise of right to rescind precluded.  vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">term conferring right to rescind if it were established that at date of contract property affected by planning scheme otherwise than as stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">statement that property affected as shown in annexed certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">no certificate annexed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">election to determine contract or to treat contract as subsisting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">unequivocal conduct with knowledge of facts giving right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">imputation to clients of solicitor's knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">exercise of right to rescind precluded.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 554E Proof of debt by secured creditor</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 689">discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 689">discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 689">imputed disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 689">appropriate comparator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 689">reasonable imposition of requirement on an employee to attend a medical examination to determine fitness to perform duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 689">what constitutes subjecting an employee to 'any other detriment'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 35">discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 35">university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 35">termination of phd candidature on the basis of disruptive behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 35">imputed disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 35">serious psychological problems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 35">relevant comparator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 35">person manifesting the same behaviour but without the disability</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 689" id="cs0">At [67]-[68] their Honours proceeded to consider whether the treatment of Ms Zhang by the University in consequence of her behaviour, namely, the imposition of conditions on her continued study and ultimately the constructive termination of her candidature, was less favourable than would have been given to others who acted disruptively in the same way but did not have a psychological disability. They proceeded to refer to the paucity of evidence in that regard but noted the evidence of the relevant University personnel to the effect that they would have done the same thing with any other student in the same circumstances. There was no suggestion in any of the evidence to support an allegation that the University would in fact have treated another disruptive graduate student more favourably than it treated Ms Zhang. Their Honours then said at [68]:
 '... Accordingly, it cannot be said in the circumstances that the trial judge was plainly wrong (and here it must be acknowledged the deference that is due to the trial judge in matters of fact, particularly where his Honour had the benefit of seeing the Appellant give evidence viva voce and assessing her demeanour ... Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9 ; (1978) 142 CLR 531 at 551; Annand  Thompson Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1979] FCA 36 ; (1979) 25 ALR 91 at 97 and 110; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479-83; SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37 at 47) in accepting UTAS's evidence, which his Honour did implicitly in finding that there was no factual basis for a finding of discrimination: Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [3], [52]. '

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 35" id="cs1">1 The principal issue in this appeal concerns an allegation by the appellant of discrimination against her on the ground of an imputed disability, in contravention of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ("the Disability Discrimination Act "). The appeal is from a judgment of a single judge of the Court, published as Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516. His Honour dismissed with costs an application filed by the appellant under s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), claiming compensation for unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act , as well as under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). 66 The first step is to consider the behaviour in question. It was not challenged below or on appeal that the Appellant's behaviour (eg slamming papers, crying, shouting, and arguing) was considered by UTAS to be disruptive. For example, Dr Hanson gave evidence that the Appellant was "antagonising everyone she came into contact with at [UTAS], not just University academic or administrative staff but student association people as well": Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [45]. Not only did the trial judge accept Dr Hanson's evidence, he noted: "Having seen [the Appellant] giving evidence, Dr Hanson's assessment does not come as a surprise to me. Ms Ormandy gave evidence that at a student function [the Appellant] was upset and distressed and threw a plate of food at her": Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [46]. The relevant comparator is therefore another PhD candidate manifesting disruptive behaviour to the extent that there was a worsening of relations between her and other university members generally and eventually a breakdown of relations with her supervisor. 63 In the circumstances of this case, however, we do not think it is necessary to resolve either this issue or the issue of whether the 8 November letter amounted to constructive termination of the Appellant's PhD candidature. Instead, assuming without deciding that:

1. the suggestion that the Appellant attend counselling and that she suffered from "potentially serious psychological problems" constituted an imputation of a psychological disorder within the meaning of the DDA (contrary to the finding of the trial judge: Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [44]---[50]); and

2. the letter of 8 November 1999 amounted to the subjection of the Appellant to 'any other detriment' within the meaning of s 22(2)(c) of the DDA because it provided no meaningful alternative for her to continue her studies at UTAS, whether or not the letter constituted 'constructive termination' of her PhD candidature (again contrary to the finding of the trial judge: Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [3], [51]);

the Appellant's discrimination claim would still fail because it cannot be said that UTAS would have treated a person without the Appellant's "disability" any differently. The reason is that the relevant comparator is a person displaying the same behaviour as the Appellant but without the disability, not a person without the disability and without the behaviour.  33 This is an appeal against an order dismissing the Appellant's application under s 46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) ("the HREOC Act "): Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516.  66 The first step is to consider the behaviour in question. It was not challenged below or on appeal that the Appellant's behaviour (eg slamming papers, crying, shouting, and arguing) was considered by UTAS to be disruptive. For example, Dr Hanson gave evidence that the Appellant was "antagonising everyone she came into contact with at [UTAS], not just University academic or administrative staff but student association people as well": Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [45]. Not only did the trial judge accept Dr Hanson's evidence, he noted: "Having seen [the Appellant] giving evidence, Dr Hanson's assessment does not come as a surprise to me. Ms Ormandy gave evidence that at a student function [the Appellant] was upset and distressed and threw a plate of food at her": Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [46]. The relevant comparator is therefore another PhD candidate manifesting disruptive behaviour to the extent that there was a worsening of relations between her and other university members generally and eventually a breakdown of relations with her supervisor. 62 On the other hand, UTAS had responsibilities to the staff and to the Appellant. In evaluating the conduct of UTAS, these responsibilities cannot be ignored. Professor Denholm's sworn evidence was that he proposed the conditions because he was trying to find a way for the Appellant to continue her studies at UTAS if that was what she wanted. Professor Denholm considered that the ongoing disputation by the Appellant about the issues addressed by those conditions would make it almost impossible for the Appellant to continue her studies within UTAS and he was trying to prevent that from happening. In other words, the Respondents contended, and the trial judge accepted ( Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [50]) that the conduct complained of should not be found to constitute an imputation of a psychological disability because it was undertaken with beneficent intent. 68 In the absence of such evidence, the Court is left only with evidence of the relevant university personnel to the effect that they would have done the same thing with any other student in the same circumstances. It may be accepted that this evidence was less than wholly satisfactory. However, although the Appellant challenged UTAS's evidence as both self-serving and non-specific, the fact remains that it was not impeached by her either in cross-examination or by positive evidence of her own. In short, there is no suggestion in any of the evidence to support an allegation that UTAS would in fact have treated another disruptive graduate student more favourably than the Appellant. Accordingly, it cannot be said in the circumstances that the trial judge was plainly wrong (and here it must be acknowledged the deference that is due to the trial judge in matters of fact, particularly where his Honour had the benefit of seeing the Appellant give evidence viva voce and assessing her demeanour, as noted: Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9 ; (1978) 142 CLR 531 , 551; Annand  Thompson Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission [1979] FCA 36 ; (1979) 25 ALR 91 , 97, 110; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 , 479---83; SS Hontestroom v SS Sagaporack [1927] AC 37 , 47) in accepting UTAS's evidence, which his Honour did implicitly in finding that there was no factual basis for a finding of discrimination: Zhang v University of Tasmania [2008] FCA 516 , [3], [52]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l1">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 22 Education</title>
<title id="l2">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l3">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 15 Employment</title>
<title id="l4">SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 </title>
<title id="l5">SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1984 - SECT 14 Discrimination in employment or in superannuation</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">proceedings in new south wales between companies incorporated in new south wales arising out of damage to goods occurring in the united states of america</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">us corporation joined as second defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">new south wales defendant cross claims against chinese and united states corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">whether nsw companies suffered damage in new south wales in the form of economic loss by reason of being incorporated and having principal places of business in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">whether new south wales supreme court is clearly inappropriate forum to try all issues.acts cited:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">law reform (miscellaneous provisions) act 1946 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">s.5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">supreme court rules 1970 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 803">pt 8 r.2, pt 10 r.1a(1), r.2(1), r.6a, pt 11 r.8(1)(h)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">applicant brought proceedings against respondent in azerbaijan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">applicant claimed compensation from the respondent in azerbaijan proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">claim for compensation based on acts and omissions of respondent that occurred in azerbaijan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">applicant amended claim in azerbaijan to withdraw claim for compensation and claim only production of documents by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">azerbaijan court made orders for production of some documents and otherwise dismissed the claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">applicant commenced proceeding in australia claiming compensation from respondent in respect of acts and omissions relied on in the azerbaijani proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">whether the applicant estopped from proceeding in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 897">whether australia was a clearly inappropriate forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1518">admiralty and maritime jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1518">meaning of "a claim arising out of an agreement that relates to carriage of goods by a ship" for s 4(3)(f) of the admiralty act 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1518">whether damage to goods caused by a warehouseman acting under an agreement with a freight forwarder who undertook to carry the goods by land and sea, loading a shipping container at its premises prior to transportation to the port for loading on board ship fell within the provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1518">whether the proceeding should be dismissed or stayed because of a time bar or exclusive jurisdiction clause</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 897" id="cs0">In the case of Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC [2007] FCA 433 at [10] , Allsop J (as his Honour then was) observed:

 It is clear from a number of cases in New South Wales decided in the 1980s on a cognate rule that damage in the rule does not mean the injury which completed the tort, but rather it means the disadvantage or detriment suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the tortious act or omission of the defendant. In this respect the word "damage" in this context has a wider meaning than injury.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1518" id="cs1">3 On 28 March 2007, the Court made orders for leave to serve the defendant in England: see Heilbrunn v Lightwood PLC [2007] FCA 433. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Maritime claims</title>
<title id="l2">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 5 Application</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 444">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 444">allegations of price fixing and market sharing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 444">information concerning allegations came to knowledge of applicant on 22 november 2004</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 444">in principle decision to commence proceedings on 28 november 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 444">claim for privilege for documents created after 15 december 2004</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">reinstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">whether court satisfied that it is just that the company's registration be reinstated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">reinstatement sought for purposes of proceedings alleging contraventions of part iv of trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">relevance of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">effect of reinstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 316">order conditional on payment of liquidator's costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 471B Stay of proceedings and suspension of enforcement process</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601AB Deregistration--ASIC initiated</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 601AH Reinstatement</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 147">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 147">defendant refused to answer questions before the companies auditors  liquidators board disciplinary panel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 147">no "reasonable excuse"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 147">reliance on legal advice not "reasonable excuse"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 147">advice not given</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 147">reliance not reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 147">defendant to be punished as if guilty of contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 672">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 672">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 672">penalty to reflect seriousness of the matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 672">penalty to deter defendant from repeating a contempt and deter others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether orders of a superior court must be observed even if order should not have been made or was made without jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether hearing on contempt charges should have been adjourned until principal proceeding was determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether the entitlement to rely upon privilege against self-incrimination meant that findings of fact could not be made or inferences drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether single judge failed to give sufficient weight to other matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">where orders served upon the appellant did not bear the notice required by o 37 r 2 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether absence of notice meant that orders for committal of the appellant should not have been made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether there is a power to impose a fine for contempt even if the order does not bear the notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether the power of dispensation ought to be exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">whether respondent could adduce fresh evidence  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">application for leave to appeal from order of single judge dismissing motion to set aside orders made ex parte</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">where grounds of appeal are misconceived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">where no evidence that orders obtained improperly costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 118">appellant only succeeded on point raised by the court after the hearing of the appeal had commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">publication of slightly amended version of injuncted document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">no legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">recklessness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">aggravating factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">malice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">company and individual respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">whether separate penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">separate contempts in one course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">discounting of total</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">effect of forfeiture of interlocutory relief and costs liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1402">effect of indemnity costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2001] VSC 398">contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2001] VSC 398">criminal contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2001] VSC 398">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2001] VSC 398">imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2001] VSC 398">suspended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2001] VSC 398">application of sentencing act 1991</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2001] VSC 398">conditions required re suspension.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">contempt of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">civil and criminal contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">fine for civil contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">daily fine for existing and continuing contempt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">anticipatory punishment for future default in complying with order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">sequestration order in execution of order imposing fines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 24</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 46">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 23 , 31 .</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 19 Notice requiring appearance for examination</title>
<title id="l2">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 217 Power to summon witnesses and take evidence</title>
<title id="l3">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 219 Failure of witnesses to attend and answer questions</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1292 Powers of Board in relation to auditors and liquidators</title>
<title id="l6">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31 Contempt of Court</title>
<title id="l9">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l10">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 24 Contempt</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">cartel conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">visy companies and amcor companies held 90 per cent of the corrugated fibreboard packaging market in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">between january 2000 and october 2004 visy and amcor engaged in price-fixing and market sharing contrary to s 45 of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">amcor received conditional immunity from action by the australian competition and consumer commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">commission brought action against visy companies and three of its senior officers four categories of contraventions: over-arching understanding in 2000 to maintain market share and increase prices; annual price increase understandings each year for 2000 to 2003, customer price understandings and compensation understandings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">respondents admitted liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1617">parties submitted an agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 26">legal costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 26">proceedings commenced in local court for $11,923.17 for services rendered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 26">unsuccessful application for transfer of those proceedings to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 26">adverse order for costs following that event made on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 26">unsuccessful party gave notice of intention to have successful party's bill of costs 'dismissed' but did not appear on any such application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 26">order made by federal court in favour of successful party for fixed sum for costs in lieu of need for taxation of those costs federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 26">order 62 rule 4(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">conversion damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">whether lump sum costs orders should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">order for costs in a gross sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">further order sought seven months after initial costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 392">non-compliance with case management practice note</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 392" id="cs0">The fact that an order is sought after judgment has been delivered does not preclude the power now being exercised. Rule 4(3) expressly provides that an order may be made " whether or not an order that costs be paid ... has previously been made or entered ": cf. Salfinger v Niugini Mining (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 5) [2008] FCA 1119 at [17] per Heerey J. See also: Lawrance v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2008] FCA 1060. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1120" id="cs1">2 Prior to hearing this application on 29 July 2008 I dealt with a similar application by Niugini Mining in respect of the costs of the proceeding at first instance: Salfinger v Niugini Mining (Aust) Pty Ltd (No 5) [2008] FCA 1119.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 998">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 998">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 998">taiwan businessman claiming political persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 998">did not attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 998">no arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 998">application dismissed at show-cause hearing.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 272" id="cs0">16 It is well settled that leave to appeal will only be granted where the judgment appealed from is attended with sufficient doubt and substantial injustice would arise if leave to appeal was refused (see, for example, SZIMB v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs [2006] FCA 1405 at [10] ).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">stoppage of work because of death of employee on unrelated site</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">claim by union for employees to be paid for period of stoppage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">industrial action in support of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether claim reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">admitted breaches of statutory prohibition on payment for period of industrial action and on claiming payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">penalty agreed to by employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">appropriate penalty for breach by union. workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">union claim that numerous employees should be paid for single period of industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">employees paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether one breach or multiple breaches of statute. penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">contravention of statutory prohibition on making payment to employee for period of industrial action and on claiming such payment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">agreement between applicant and employer on amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">whether within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">seriousness of breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">factors to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">objects of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">individual and general deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 65">totality principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">workers' compensation (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">statutory insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">whether extending to accident insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">employer's statutory duty to insure against liability to pay damages in respect of inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">damages for nervous shock sustained by wife of injured worker consequent on his injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">policy of statute to provide only for injuries arising in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">whether enlarged by "in respect of"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">workers' compensation act 1916 (q.), ss. 8(1), 9a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">frustration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract to carry out excavations for rail authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">completion required by certain date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contractor working three shifts seven days per week</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">injunction granted to third party restraining contractor from working at certain times</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether implied term of contract that authority would grant reasonable extension of time and indemnify contractor against additional costs occasioned by grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether injunction frustrated contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">extrinsic evidence of intention.  arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">jurisdiction to entertain claim that contract frustrated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">power to award interest on award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">compound interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 94(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">sale of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">essential terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">assertion of erroneous construction of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">whether repudiation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">assertion that contract rescinded based on other party's refusal to accept correct construction of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">whether repudiation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">abandonment of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1978] HCA 12">right to return of deposit.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether union or employer breached civil remedy provisions of the fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether action of employees constituted industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">where employees directed to perform work in a particular manner on certain shifts but continued to work as they had done in the past</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">part of wages of employees withheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employer obliged under s.474 of the fair work act not to make payment to employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employer breached terms of transitional instruments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employee organisation asked employer to make a payment to an employee that would be a contravention of s.474</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employee organisation knowingly or recklessly made a misrepresentation about the employer's obligation to engage in industrial action.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 688" id="cs0">Moreover, in O'Shea v Heinemann Electric Pty Ltd (2008) 172 FCR 475 ; [2008] FCA 1799 Middleton J suggested that while s.507 of the Workplace Relations Act (the predecessor to s.474 of the FWA insofar as it relates to unprotected industrial action) was in different terms to s.187AA, basically the same purpose was behind both provisions. As Middleton J stated at [28] --- [29]: It seems one purpose of the operation of s 507 is to deter industrial action for minor grievances. An employee will seriously consider stopping work for just 5 minutes if the consequence is losing a half day's pay.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1718">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1718">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1718">respondent's motion seeking dismissal of action with costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1718">applicant's motion seeking leave to discontinue with no order as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1718">whether applicant's claim brought unreasonably</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1718">whether claim had no likelihood of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1718">reasonableness of conduct by the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">baxter v obacelo pty ltd  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">joint tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">satisfaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">settlement with one tortfeasor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">entry of consent judgment against one tortfeasor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">settlement figure less than total damages claimed by the respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">whether settlement prevented respondents continuing claim against other tortfeasor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">whether cause of action against joint tortfeasors is one and indivisible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">whether settlement was paid and received in "full satisfaction" of respondents' loss.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">rule against "double satisfaction"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">settlement amount in first action less than amount otherwise recoverable in second action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">respondents conceded that credit is to be given for the amount recovered upon settlement of the first action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">whether second action in breach of rule against "double satisfaction"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 66">nature of the rule against "double satisfaction".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">public liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">indemnity to insured and its contractors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">contractor engaged at date of claim but not when policy issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 44">entitlement to indemnity.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 4 Maritime claims</title>
<title id="l2">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 6 Certain rights not created or affected</title>
<title id="l3">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 15 Right to proceed in rem on maritime liens etc.</title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 190 Waiver of rules of evidence</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 1 Short title [see Note 1]</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l11">PROPERTY LAW ACT 1974 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">pilmer v the duke group limited (in liquidation)  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">calculation of loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">contract of retainer for valuation of subject of takeover bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">plaintiff company effected takeover in reliance on valuation made in breach of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">had valuation been accurate plaintiff would not have proceeded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">consideration included cash and issue and allotment of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether plaintiff suffered loss by issue of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether damages include sum representing market value of shares issued under agreement.  companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">share capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">maintenance of capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company limited by shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company issuing new shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">issue and allotment otherwise than for cash</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether company suffers loss by reason of issuing new shares.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">fiduciary duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">duty of loyalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">conflict of duties and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">conflict of duty and duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">accountant retained by company to give independent expert valuation report to be placed before shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether accountant owed fiduciary duties to company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">principles of causation in equity.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">equitable compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">reduction for contributing fault.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">trusts and trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">officer of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">manager of property development company informs another developer of availability of suitable properties for development</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">agreement to share profits or bear losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">whether properties acquired by second developer held on constructive trust for first</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1975] HCA 8">whether constructive notice knowledge.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 50 Prohibition of publication of evidence etc.</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


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


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">whether inclusion of a document as an annexure to an affidavit is in itself proper discovery of the document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">whether discovery is necessary when documents are already in the hands of the other party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">whether various documents satisfy the criteria required by o15 r 2(3) federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">meaning of possession, custody or power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">whether documents in the possession, custody or control of a company in administration under pt 5.3a corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">meaning of 'general discovery' under o 15 federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1001">whether an order for general discovery under o 15 includes documents discoverable pursuant to the 'train of inquiry' test.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l1">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


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


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1900">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1900">high court and federal court procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1900">staying proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1900">application for stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1900">where criminal or civil penalty proceedings against the respondent a contingency but not a real possibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1900">whether civil proceedings should be stayed temporarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1900">temporary stay refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">service of originating process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">service outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">application for leave to serve outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">whether considerations concerning australia's international relations relevant to grant of leave to serve out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">federal court rules 1979 (cth) o 8 r 2practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">application for leave to serve outside the jurisdiction where final injunctive relief sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">statutory public interest injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">relevance of potential unenforceability of injunctive relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 116">futility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">penalties under part iv of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">statutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">construction of s. 80 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">appropriateness and form of a permanent injunction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">allegation of misleading advertising and the like</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">offer of undertaking to comply with relevant provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">whether proceedings should continue.  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">whether proper to make order in terms of act relied on by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">obligation of court to accept undertaking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">proper form of injunction.  trade practices act, ss.52, 53  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">undertakings to comply with relevant legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">whether proper that court make order in terms sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1985] FCA 389">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 52 , 53 . held: (1) in determining whether to accept undertakings similar to those sought by way of injunction, the court should apply the principles which govern the grant of an injunction. in so doing it should be mindful, inter alia, that it is undesirable to make an order which leaves unresolved the central issue in the case.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">whether hearing "discontinued"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">application for certificate.  federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 , s. 10(3).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">hearing fixed to commence on a particular date but no judge available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">whether hearing discontinued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 (cth), s 10(3)(a). a hearing which has been fixed to commence on a particular date but which does not do so because no judge of the court is available to hear it, has been "discontinued" within the meaning of s 10(3)(a) of the federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 (cth).  hearing  sydney, 1985, june 24-27. 27:6:1985</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices act, 1974 , s. 45d(14)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">application for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">"serious question to be tried"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">balance of convenience.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">secondary boycott</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">acting in concert</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">duress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">application for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">difficult questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45d(1a).  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">serious question to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1984] FCA 202">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 45d. held: (1) it is not sufficient for the purposes of establishing upon an interlocutory hearing that parties had engaged in conduct "in concert" as required by s. 45d (3) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) for the conduct to have been engaged in by one of the parties under duress.  r. v. lowrey  king (no. 2) (1972) vr 560 ; r. v. matusevich  thompson [1976] vicrp 47 ; (1976) vr 470 ; r. v. harding (1976) 129; r. v. evans (no. 1) (1976) vr 517 ; barton v. armstrong (1976) ac 104 , referred to.  (2) the concept of acting in concert in s. 45d(3) appears to require a consensual element.  the king and the attorney-general of the commonwealth v. associated northern collieries pty ltd [1911] hca 73 ; (1911) 14 clr 387 , applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">applicants claim to have avoided or varied an agreement for lease, a lease and a bill of sale together with damages for alleged breaches by the respondents of ss. 52 and 53a of the trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">promises as to the future and predictions.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">interlocutory application to dismiss, stay or strike out portions of the applicants' statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">pleading state of mind of respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">federal court rules 0.12, rules 1,2,3,5</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">principles to recognize when particulars are requested</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">summary intervention to deny applicants the trial of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">allegations against second respondent embarrassing.  trade practices act , ss. 52 and 53a  federal court rules , 0.12, rules 1,2,3 and 5  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">application to dismiss, stay or strike out portions of the applicants' statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">pleading state of mind of respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">principles to recognise when particulars are requested</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">summary intervention to deny applicants the trial of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">allegations against second respondent embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1983] FCA 33">federal court rules , o. 12, rr. 1, 2, 3, 5. the applicants had entered into an agreement for a lease with the first and second respondents. the applicants sought, inter alia, to avoid the lease and recover damages on the basis that statements alleged to have been made prior to the execution of the agreement for lease were in contravention of ss 52 and 53a of the trade practices act 1974 (cth).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">particulars of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">loss of earning capacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">particulars estimating loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">evidence of loss exceeding estimate admitted at trial without objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">verdict based on loss exceeding estimation in particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">plaintiff not bound by particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">rules of the supreme court (vict.), o. 19, r. 5a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">consent orders including undertakings about future conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">undertaking extending beyond court's power to restrain conduct by injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 45 , 45a, 80 , 86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 48">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 22 , 23 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">allegation of misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">motion to strike out statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">no material facts pleaded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">trade practices act 1974 (cth.), s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">federal court of australia rules, o. 20, r. 2; o. 4, rr. 1, 2; o. 11, r. 16; o. 12; o. 19. the applicant's statement of claim alleged misleading and deceptive conduct by the respondents in breach of s. 52 (1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth.). the respondents applied to have the statement of claim struck out, mainly on the basis that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. it was argued that the statement of claim did not plead any material facts which could form the basis of a claim under s. 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">retail price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">power to grant injunction restraining persons from engaging in retail price maintenance practice invested in commonwealth industrial court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">whether within judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">freedom of inter-state trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">prohibition of retail price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">whether permissible regulation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (i.), (xx.), 71 , 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">trade practices act 1965-1971 (cth), ss. 66b (2), 90aa.  restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">restrictive practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">retail price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">withholding of supply of goods to retailer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">withholding "for the reason that" retailer likely to sell below recommended price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">reason for withholding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">price specified as price below which the goods not to be sold</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">whether a recommended price a "specified" price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">power of industrial court to make restraining order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[1972] HCA 69">trade practices act 1965-1971 (cth), ss. 66b (2), 90aa.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">invitee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">piece of wood thrown out by circular saw in factory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">statutory obligation on occupier to provide guards for "dangerous parts" of machinery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">whether obligation extends to guarding against dangerous materials ejected from machine in motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">res ipsa loquitur</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">application of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">whether onus on defendant of disproving negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">particulars of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">function of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">extension of issues after evidence heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">considerations governing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1956] HCA 45">factories and shops act 1928 (no. 3677) (vict.), s. 59 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 175">environment law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 175">application under s 475(1) environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth) (epbc act) to restrain alleged contravention of ministerial approval of controlled action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 175">ministerial approval of dam incorporating fishway</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 175">condition of approval that fishway be suitable for the queensland lungfish and commence when dam became operational</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 175">meaning of "suitable" and "commence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 175">whether respondent contravened condition of approval  environment law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 175">standing for "interested parties" under the epbc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">purpose of pleadings and particulars generally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">application to strike out amended defence and order no further opportunity to replead</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">whether amended defence is within the letter and spirit of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">cross-application that applicant has not furnished adequate particulars of the statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">whether amended defence amounts to a mere bare denial rather than a bona fide attempt to plead to the statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">meaning and use of phrase "at all material times"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">underlying defects in statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 972">held applicant is the author of its own claimed complaint in respect of the amended defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">application by respondent to strike out paragraphs of the amended statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">whether the paragraphs the subject of the challenge were necessarily pleaded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">whether the paragraphs the subject of the challenge were factors going to the exercise of a discretion to grant injunctive relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">held paragraphs stated evidence rather than material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">held paragraphs counselled an irrelevant factual inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 540">held offending paragraphs struck out.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 175" id="cs0">As the interlocutory judgments ( Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 237 and Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 540) in this matter reveal, the formulation of the Conservation Council's case proved controversial. Its statement of claim underwent much revision. As finally amended, the Conservation Council alleged (para 17 of the further amended statement of claim) and Burnett Water denied that a fish transfer device which was suitable for the lungfish was one which:

 17. ...

 (a) is likely to allow any normal sized lungfish attempting to move upstream and downstream of the dam wall to do so without injury or death irrespective of the water level in the dam ;
 (b) operates continuously each day of the year both day and night, subject only to minor interruptions for repairs and maintenance and environmental flows, such interruptions being on average less than 5% of total time per annum ; and/or
 (c) is actually operating to allow any normal sized lungfish to move upstream and downstream of the dam wall .

 [Extract shows the amendments made to the pleading]

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 972" id="cs1">That review also disclosed a prospect, though not, as yet the actuality, of what was memorably described in an earlier edition of Bullen  Leake  Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings (12 th Ed, 1975, Sweet  Maxwell at 113-114) as "the particulars game", i.e. where parties deliberately engage in mutual brinkmanship as to the concealing and revealing of their respective cases, see, further, Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 237 at [7] and [8]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 540" id="cs2">This practice application is a sequel to an order which I made on 18 March 2009 striking out the then existing statement of claim for reasons which I then published: Wide Bay Conservation Council Inc v Burnett Water Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 237. Having so done, I granted leave to the Wide Bay Burnett Conservation Council Inc (Conservation Council) to file and serve an amended statement of claim. In today's application, Burnett Water Pty Ltd (Burnett Water) seeks the following orders in respect of the amended statement of claim: that paras 35 - 43, 45, 46 - 90 and 96 - 98 be struck out. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l1">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l2">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 142 Compliance with conditions on approval</title>
<title id="l3">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 142A Offence of breaching conditions on approval</title>
<title id="l4">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 142B Strict liability offence for breach of approval condition</title>
<title id="l5">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 475 Injunctions for contravention of the Act</title>
<title id="l6">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 479 Certain considerations for granting injunctions not relevant</title>
<title id="l7">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 498B Conduct of directors, employees and agents</title>
<title id="l8">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 523 Actions</title>
<title id="l9">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 528 Definitions</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">income tax (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">amended assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">condition precedent to power to amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">failure to make full and true disclosure of material facts and consequential avoidance of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1956] HCA 62">income tax and social services contribution assessment act 1936-1955, ss. 170 (2), 173, 177 (1), 190 (b).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l1">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZO Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>