Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">professional indemnity insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">construction of contracts of insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">whether loss arose out of design fault or construction work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">exclusion of liabilityindemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">whether grant of indemnity an admission of liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">whether payment under co-ordinate policy extinguished rights against underlying insurerwords  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">meaning of "paid"practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] NSWCA 243">duty of parties to co-operate and be clear as to issues in litigation, especially in the commercial list.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">application for preliminary discovery o 15a federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">applicant at trial sought leave to discontinue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">leave refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">application at first instance dismissed as applicant tendered no evidence costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether appellant should pay certain costs of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether discovery by appellant provided the respondent with sufficient information to determine whether to pursue its causes of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether primary judge erred in principles applied to dismissal of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 7">whether primary judge misapprehended relevant facts to be considered when making costs orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">civil practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">judicial discretion to allow claim out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">prejudice to defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">claim out of time under motor accidents act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">appeal against decision denying leave to commence proceedings out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">whether defendant would suffer prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">discussion and commentary on modern role for ambush and adversarial tactics in civil proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">motor accidents act 1988 (nsw), s 52(4).  civil practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">discretion of court of appeal to admit new evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">appeal against decision denying leave to commence proceedings out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">evidence relating to causation of personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">supreme court act 1970 (nsw), s 75a(7) -(9).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 346">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">bill of lading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">provisions limiting liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">term that benefit of those provisions be available to servants and agents (including independent contractors) of carriers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">carrier to be deemed to contract as agent or trustee for their benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">whether third party stevedore can claim benefit of provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">scope of exemption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">himalaya clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 8">sea carriage of goods act 1924 (cth), s.9 (2).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 867">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 867">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 867">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 867">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 867">application for review of rrt decision affirming decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 867">where applicant did not attend the tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 867">whether migration act 1975 (cth) ss.474,475 and 476 are unconstitutional.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">disability discrimination in education</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">alleged suspension and expulsion of disabled child from primary school</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">issue of fact whether the child had been suspended and expelled by the school or withdrawn by his parents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">whether a child can be constructively expelled considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">issue of fact concerning the reason for the alleged suspension or expulsion of the child</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">issues of behaviour.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1">the power of the court to make orders requiring an educational institution to re-admit an excluded child considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">application for review of decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">primary decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">where delegate's decision has been reviewed by the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">where application for judicial review of the rrt decision has previously been dismissed by the federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">where appeal has previously been dismissed by federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">where application for special leave to appeal has previously been dismissed by the high court.practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">failure to disclose a reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">vexatious proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] FMCA 1933">res judicata .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">obligation to give written reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">whether transcript sufficient to constitute written reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">power to order that no further application be accepted for filing except with the leave of the court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">claim for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">order preventing dissipation of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">mareva injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">power to order provision of security for satisfaction of any judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s. 23.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trading and financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">prohibition of corporations from engaging in misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">imposition of liability for damages on persons involved in such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">imposition on persons other than corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4(1) , 52 (1), 75b, 82 (1), 84 (2).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trading and financial corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">character of corporation which has barely begun to carry on business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">relevance of constitution including objects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xx).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">non-federal claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">whether part of same matter as federal claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">the constitution (62  63 vict. c. 12), ss. 76 , 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1983] HCA 12">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 86.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">proceedings in federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">claim for relief under federal statute and at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">jurisdiction in common law claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">the consitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (xxxix.), 71, 75, 76, 77</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), ss. 19 , 22 , 32</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 40</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s. 15a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1981] HCA 7">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 , 53 , 80 , 82, 86.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">judicial power of commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">trade practices tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">power to determine that agreement or practice examinable and whether contrary to public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">agreement or practice rendered unenforceable by determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">power to make restraining order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (i.), 71 , 72</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">trade practices act 1965-1968 (cth), ss. 47, 49, 50, 52.  restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">restrictive practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">trade practices tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">whether vested with judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 51 (i.), 71 , 72</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1970] HCA 8">trade practices act 1965-1968 (cth), ss. 47, 49, 50, 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">industrial arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">court of conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">arbitral power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">combination of powers in one body</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">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="cp11.8">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1952 (no. 13 of 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">no. 34 of 1952), ss. 29 (1) (b), (c), 29a.  industrial law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">court of conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">vested with judicial and arbitral powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">combination of powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">constitutional validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">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="cp11.15">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">conciliation and arbitration act 1904-1952 (no. 13 of 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[1956] HCA 10">no. 34 of 1952), ss. 29 (1) (b), (c), 29a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 283">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 283">whether sexual harassment and/or victimisation by fellow employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 283">whether offensive behaviour based on racial hatred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 283">liability of employer.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 644">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 644">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 644">allocation and modification of public housing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 644">respondent experiencing difficulty in finding and modifying accommodation that met the expectations of the applicants in view of the deteriorating condition of the second applicant.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 644">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 644">no reasonable prospect that the applicants would succeed on the application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">sale of industrial paint.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">associated jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">jurisdiction to determine cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">whether cross-claim is associated to main action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">cross-claim based on deed of guarantee and indemnity.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">whether cross-claim can be brought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 773">whether to be heard together with main action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">power to make orders in relation to matter in which federal magistrates court has jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">whether associated jurisdiction in respect of matters subject of proposed cross-claim.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">application for leave to amend response and defence and institute cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">factors for consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">nature and importance of amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">circumstances giving rise to amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">delay and explanation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">case management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2010] FMCA 281">costs and prejudice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">notice of motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">refusal to serve notice of motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">rules re service of notice of motion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">proper administration of justice.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">actual bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">whether actual bias or reasonable apprehension of bias.  jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">associated jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">whether matters within associated jurisdiction.  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2007] FMCA 474">annulment of sequestration order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 488">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 488">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 488">no reasonable prospect of the applicant succeeding on the application.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 283" id="cs0">However, as set out above, neither victimisation under the SDA nor any breach of the RDA has been established. Some, but not all of the alleged conduct within s.28B(2) of the SDA has been made out. The claim for damages must be seen in light of these findings. Relevantly, in proceedings commenced under s.46PO of the AHRC Act Cowdroy J stated in New South Wales Department of Housing v Moskalev and Another (2007) 158 FCR 206 ; [2007] FCA 353 at ([34]) that " In the absence of any finding of unlawful conduct by [the respondent] there [i] s no jurisdiction under s 15 of the FMA which [can] support the order " sought under the applicable legislation. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 644" id="cs1">At times, temporary accommodation must be found pending the availability of suitable permanent accommodation. There are bound to be significant limitations in the suitability of temporary accommodation. This Court does not have any general jurisdiction to deal with perceived administrative shortcomings in the provision of public housing in New South Wales [1] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 773" id="cs2">In Welsh this Court dealt with the associated matter jurisdiction of this Court, observing that: matters are associated if there is a common substratum of fact between the original matter within jurisdiction and the associated matter, and, if that is so, the associated jurisdiction of this Court may be invoked; [27] the nature of the associated jurisdiction of this Court was dealt with by the Federal Court in New South Wales Department of Housing v Moskalev . [28] In Moskalev , the Federal Court set out the law concerning this Court's associated jurisdiction as follows: "In Philip Morris Incorporated and Another v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Proprietary Limited; United States Surgical Corporation v Hospital Products International Proprietary Limited and Others (1981) 148 CLR 457 at 474, Barwick CJ said of the application of s.32 of the Federal Court Act: 'Thus, there may be circumstances in which the matter does not in substance itself attract federal jurisdiction, though that which attracts federal jurisdiction must in some way relate to the matter. Once federal jurisdiction is attracted, it is not lost because the claim or assertion which attracted it has not been substantiated or has been displaced by some countervailing fact. Once attracted, by whatever path attracted, the jurisdiction persists to enable the Court to resolve the matter.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 281" id="cs3">The nature of the associated jurisdiction of the Court was dealt with by the Federal Court in New South Wales Department of Housing v Moskalev . [13] At first instance in this Court an application under s.46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth) claiming discrimination in the provision of accommodation was dismissed, but notwithstanding the dismissal, the Court ordered the Department of Housing to reassess eligibility for priority housing under the Department of Housing Priority Housing Philosophy. The issue for the Federal Court was whether this Court's order for reassessment of priority was beyond power. [14] Ultimately, the answer to the issue depended upon whether the ability to make the order sought to be impugned was within this Court's associated jurisdiction under s.18 of the FM Act . [15] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 474" id="cs4">Whether or not a matter is within the associated jurisdiction of the Court was recently dealt with by the Federal Court in New South Wales Department of Housing v Moskalev . [70] At first instance in this Court an application under s.46PO of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Act 1986 (Cth) claiming discrimination in the provision of accommodation was dismissed, but notwithstanding the dismissal, the Court ordered the Department of Housing to reassess eligibility for priority housing under the Department of Housing Priority Housing Philosophy. The issue for the Federal Court was whether this Court's order for reassessment of priority was beyond power. [71] Ultimately, the answer to the issue depended upon whether the ability to make the order sought to be impugned was within this Court's associated jurisdiction under s.18 of the FM Act . [72] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 488" id="cs5">In relation to the claim in the Court's associated or accrued jurisdiction, the Federal Court has provided guidance in New South Wales Department of Housing v Moskalev [2007] FCA 353 at [17] - [34].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 18 Absence of President</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 76 Additional original jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l3">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l4">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 5 Direct disability discrimination</title>
<title id="l5">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 6 Indirect disability discrimination</title>
<title id="l6">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 11 Unjustifiable hardship</title>
<title id="l7">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 25 Accommodation</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 32 Jurisdiction in associated matters</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l12">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 10 Jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 15 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 18 Jurisdiction in associated matters</title>
<title id="l15">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l16">HOUSING ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l17">HOUSING ACT 2001 - SECT 6 Establishment of New South Wales Land and Housing Corporation</title>
<title id="l18">HOUSING ACT 2001 - SECT 71 Disclosure of information</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">application to strike out certain paragraphs of statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">cross-application for leave to further amend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">whether reasonable cause of action disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">whether parts of pleading embarrassing.federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">jurisdiction to strike out discretionary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">ordering further particulars and allowing proposed amendments an alternative to striking out.collateral contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">whether an inconsistency between terms of collateral contract and main contract rendered a claim untenable.trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 292">whether allegations pleaded properly.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">htw valuers (central qld) pty ltd v astonland pty ltd  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">breach of contract and negligent provision of advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">respondent relied on valuation advice from appellant in purchasing commercial premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">risk of decline in market value of premises from competing business not taken into account in advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether damages assessed at date of contract to purchase premises or only once risk eventuated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether damages based on "true value" or "market value" of premises at date of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">whether assessment of "true value" at date of contract includes subsequent events</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 54">purpose of damages under trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 82.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">murphy v overton investments pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">misleading conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lease for unit in retirement village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">lessee liable to pay proportionate part of all expenditure incurred in operating village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate of likely expenditure given to prospective lessees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">estimate did not include all expenditure being incurred in operation of the village</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">accepted that respondent engaged in conduct in contravention of pt v of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">relief available under pt vi of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether appellants suffered "loss or damage" within meaning of ss 82 and 87 of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" confined to economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether incurring unexpected expenditure can be loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether "loss or damage" is necessarily singular</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether loss or damage constituted only by any diminution in value of the lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] HCA 3">whether increased future contributions could be awarded as damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">i  l securities pty ltd v htw valuers (brisbane) pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">loan transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">mortgage over land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading and deceptive valuation of land by valuer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">failure by lender to make reasonable inquiries as to borrower's capacity to meet interest payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">default on loan by borrower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">proceeds of sale by mortgagee insufficient to meet borrower's obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">liability of valuer for loss and damage suffered by lender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">causal connection between contravention of trade practices act 1974 (cth) and loss and damage suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">whether damages awarded under s 82 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) to be reduced for lender's failure to take reasonable care to protect its own interests.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 31">goldsmith v sandilands high court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">henville v walker  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">real estate transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">home unit development</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">misleading representation by land agent to developer as to price which could be obtained for residential home units</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">incorrect estimate of likely costs of development made by developer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damages where misleading or deceptive conduct is but one of a combination of circumstances bringing about the loss ultimately suffered.  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">statutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">relevance of common law analogies when quantifying damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">identification of loss or damage required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">causation of loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 52">quantification of damage caused "by conduct of" person in breach of s 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">tepko pty limited v water board  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">negligent misstatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">economic loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">statutory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">no statutory obligation to answer queries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">estimate sought and "upper limit" figure provided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">whether duty of care owed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">knowledge of serious purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">known reliance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">assumption of responsibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">whether appreciation of consequences of error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">whether reasonable to rely on "ball-park" figure.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">separate trial of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">need for clear justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">difficulties of separate trial of issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">use of books of documents where status and relevance in the trial are uncertain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 19">identification of documents in evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 10">giumelli  anor v giumelli  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 10">relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 10">equitable estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 10">constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 10">equitable charge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 10">whether relief confined to reversal of detriment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 10">relevance of other appropriate remedies and of third party interests to measure of relief.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">michael marks  ors v gio australia holdings limited  ors  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">measure of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether analogous with damages in tort or contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">distinction between "expectation" and "reliance" loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether loss or damage suffered or likely to be suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 69">whether damage caused "by conduct of" defendant.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">police (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">action against police officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">statutory protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">act in carrying provisions of statute into effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">act in pursuance or execution or intended execution of public duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">limitation act 1935 (wa), s. 47a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">police act 1892 (wa), s. 138</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">interpretation act 1918 (wa), s. 47, par. h, 2nd sched.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">negotiations for lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">exchange of parts requisite to concluded agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">terms agreed but parts not exchanged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">conduct of proposed tenant leading owner to believe exchange would occur</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">act by owner to detriment in that belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">whether proposed tenant estopped from denying lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">no signed note or memorandum of lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 7">conveyancing act 1919 (n.s.w.), s. 54a(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">hire purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">repossession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">statutory notice by owner of hirer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">sufficiency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">posting to hirer at last known place of abode or business permissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">post office given by hirer as postal address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">whether place of abode</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">hire-purchase act of 1959 (q.), ss. 13(3), (4), 42(1)(c), (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">acts interpretation acts 1954 to 1962 (q.),s. 39(1).  practice (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">leave to defend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">affidavit failing to establish triable issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">question left to be investigated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">failure of affidavits in reply to deal with question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1983] HCA 25">rules of the supreme court (q.), o. 18,r. 1.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">injury by accident arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">death of worker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">negligence of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">option of dependants to apply for compensation or take other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">award of compensation obtained by widow on behalf of herself and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">effect of award as barring claim by dependants under lord campbell's act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation acts 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">1946 (no. 3806</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">no. 5128) (vict.)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">wrongs act 1928 (no. 3807) (vict.), part iii.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">the 1946 workers' compensation rules, rr. 8, 81.*  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">supreme court (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">dismissal of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">rules of the supreme court (vict.), order xxv., rr. 2, 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">validity of grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">claim that respondent's patent, granted in 1992, is invalid on grounds including inutility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">motion by respondent to strike out applicant's inutility pleadings or in alternative, orders sought for summary dismissal or summary judgment of part of proceedings alleging inutility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">whether expert evidence necessary  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">where applicant seeks discovery of all documents relevant to issue of utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">whether documents relating to experiments conducted by respondent post-grant excluded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">whether manufacturing documents excluded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2006] FCA 1227">discretion to limit discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 975">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 975">fish  fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 975">quotas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 975">administrative appeals tribunal reconsideration of applicant's licence to fish in southern shark fishery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 975">applicant seek reconsideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 975">respondent seeks summary dismissal of applicant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 975">summary dismissal refused.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 1227" id="cs0">Merck submitted that the section provided a lesser test that the test which applies under the other provisions. It referred to observations of Heerey J in Duncan v Lipscombe Child Care Services Inc [2006] FCA 458 , in which his Honour said at [6]:

 s 31A was introduced to establish a lower standard for strikeouts (either of claims or defences) than that previously laid down by the High Court´s decisions in Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1 ; (1948) 78 CLR 62 and General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125 at 130, namely that the allegations are 'so clearly untenable that [they] cannot possibly succeed'. "

See also, in relation to s 31A: Vans, Inc v Offprice.Com.Au Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 137 , Garrett v Macks [2006] FCA 601 , Mobileworld Operating Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2006] FCA 743 , Wearne v Southern Cross University [2006] FCA 1033 , Unilin Beheer BV v Shun Li De Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 534 , Tepperova v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCA 1147.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FCA 950" id="cs1">17 In light of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to grant the primary relief sought in respect of paras 33 to 47 of the statement of claim. None of Autodesk's complaints come close to satisfying the well-known tests that apply when striking out under O 11 r 16 or summary judgment under O 20 r 2 are sought. (In this proceeding, notwithstanding s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the test that applies to the latter is that enunciated in Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners [1949] HCA 1 ; (1949) 78 CLR 62 and General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125. See Mobileworld Operating Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2006] FCA 743 at [16] and [17]. ) Further, in light of the foregoing, there is no basis upon which to grant the secondary relief sought in respect of paras 33 to 47 of the statement of claim.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 975" id="cs2">However, as Kenny J pointed out in Mobileworld Operating Pty Ltd v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2006] FCA 743 , item 44 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 provides that the amendments contained in items 5, 7, 8 and 9 of Schedule 1 are to apply from the commencement day of the legislation.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 </title>
<title id="l3">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 52 Misleading or deceptive conduct.</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 82 Actions for damages.</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE PRACTICES ACT 1974 No. 51, 1974 - SECT 87 Ancillary orders.</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 52">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 52">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 52">claim for permanent impairment arising from injury suffered in 1951</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 52">cervical spine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 52">where administrative appeals tribunal found that level of permanent impairment was less than ten per cent prior to 1988 and that permanent impairment arose well prior to 1 december 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 52">no claim for lump sum compensation available.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 848">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 848">claim for permanent impairment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 848">cervical spine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 848">tribunal not in error of law in concluding no claim for lump sum compensation available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 848">tribunal not in error of law in conclusion of fact that permanent impairment arose well prior to 1 december 1988</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] AATA 268">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2002] AATA 268">claim for permanent impairment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2002] AATA 268">cervical spine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2002] AATA 268">whether injury in 1951 resulted in permanent impairment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2002] AATA 268">whether impairment result of congenital degenerative changes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2002] AATA 268">whether impairment permanent prior to 1 december 1988</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 53 Enforcement of judgment</title>
<title id="l4">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l5">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 64 Applications to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 82">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 82">appeal from decision of superannuation complaints tribunal affirming decision of trustee of superannuation fund to reject member's claim for disablement benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 82">dismissal of appeal by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 82">requirement under superannuation fund trust deed that complainant have a "physical or mental incapacity" which renders her "unable to engage" in relevant work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 82">whether superannuation complaints tribunal erred by interpreting phrase "unable to engage" as meaning "permanently unable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 82">whether primary judge erroneously conflated expressions "permanently unable" and "unable now and for the foreseeable future"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 82">whether requirements for disablement benefit satisfied by complainant demonstrating she has a physical or mental incapacity and is unable to work now and for the foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1381">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1381">superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1381">whether superannuation complaints tribunal has jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1381">whether complainant had standing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1381">whether the tribunal erred.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">jurisdiction and powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">decision of trustee of a superannuation fund that accumulated contributions refunded to the member and subsequently repaid to fund commenced to accrue interest from the date repaid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">whether open to tribunal to find that decision not fair and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">whether tribunal found that the trustee's decision contrary to law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">whether open to tribunal to consider that trustee's decision based on too narrow a view of trustee's powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">whether tribunal bound to confine its examination of the complaint to the actual decision of the trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1434">whether tribunal could remit decision to the trustee for reconsideration in accordance with directions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application to review decisions of minister's delegates refusing claim for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">application of chan v minister for immigration and ethnic affairs [1989] hca 62 ; (1989) 169 clr 379</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">'real chance' of persecution test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">whether delegates failed properly to consider real chance of persecution.   administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">decisions as to 'refugee status'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1996] HCA 6">proper role of reviewing court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">statutory appeal from the superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">tribunal affirmed the decision of the trustees of the superannuation fund not to pay any insurance benefit to the applicant who had been assessed as totally and permanently disabled after a workplace incident because the disablement related to a pre-existing undisclosed medical condition  superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">consideration of the role of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">tribunal must affirm a decision of a trustee if it is satisfied that the decision was fair and reasonable in relation to the complainant in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">hearing of tribunal is a hearing de novo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">tribunal able to make its own findings of fact for the purpose of determining if it was so satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">tribunal not restricted to the evidence and material before the trustees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">tribunal not required to determine whether the reasoning of the trustees was fair and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">tribunal's inquiry is directed to answering question of whether the decision of the trustees was fair and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">tribunal conducted its review in accordance with the act  question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">whether notice of appeal defective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">appeal under s 46(1) of the superannuation (resolution of complaints) act 1993 (cth) limited to question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">whether notice of appeal contained a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 8">mixed question of fact and law is not a question of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">appeal from the superannuation complaints tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal affirmed decision of the trustee of the superannuation fund not to pay any insurance benefit to the applicant who had been assessed as totally and permanently disabled after a workplace incident because the total and permanent disablement was related to his pre-existing medical condition  appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">consideration of the role of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal must affirm a decision of a trustee if it is satisfied that the decision, in its operation in relation to the complainant, was fair and reasonable in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal not to decide for itself the correct or preferable decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal may make its own findings of fact only for the purpose of determining whether the decision under review was fair and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">fairness and reasonableness to be assessed by reference to its impact on the complainant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal must not act in a way that is contrary to law  appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal must first identify the reasoning process that the trustees employed to reach their decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal did not consider how the trustees treatment of the different medical histories affected the cogency of the trustees reasons and whether it was fair and reasonable for the trustee to accept one opinion but not others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal did not consider whether it was fair and reasonable for the trustee to use different reasoning process to come to the same conclusion as tribunal on the causation issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal did not consider all medical evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal erroneously conducted a fresh review of the whole evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 504">tribunal did not properly discharge its role</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 8" id="cs0">Mr Edington was retired from the Department on 23 June 2003. In 2003 and 2004, Mr Edington lodged, withdrew, and then renewed, an application to the Board of Trustees seeking a review of the delegate's decision refusing him a TPD benefit. The Board of Trustees affirmed the delegate's decision in August 2004. Mr Edington appealed to the Tribunal against the decision of the Board of Trustees and, on 2 October 2006, the Tribunal affirmed the Board's decision. Mr Edington appealed to this Court, which dismissed his appeal on 14 December 2007: see Edington v Superannuation Complaints Tribunal [2007] FCA 1989. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 504" id="cs1">In 2003 and 2004, Mr Edington lodged, withdrew and then renewed an application to the Board of Trustees of QSuper seeking a review of the delegate's decision refusing him a total and permanent disablement insurance benefit. On 26 August 2004, the Board of Trustees decided to affirm the delegate's decision. Mr Edington then lodged a complaint against that decision with the Tribunal and, on 2 October 2006, the Tribunal decided to affirm the Board's decision. Mr Edington then lodged an appeal against the Tribunal's decision with this Court and that appeal was dismissed on 14 December 2007: see [2007] FCA 1989. Mr Edington then appealed that decision to the Full Court. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 14 Complaints about decisions of trustees other than decisions to admit persons to life policy funds</title>
<title id="l2">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 37 Tribunal powers--complaints under section 14</title>
<title id="l3">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 41 Operation of determination</title>
<title id="l4">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 46 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from determinations of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">imported goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">non-entry of goods for home consumption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">whether duty payable despite lack of entry for home consumption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs act 1901 (cth), ss 30 , 36 , 68 , 132 , 153</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs tariff act 1982 (cth), ss 11 , 18 and 19</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs tariff act 1987 (cth), ss 13 , 21 and 22 .  statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">non-entry of imported goods for home consumption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">whether duty payable despite lack of entry for home consumption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs act 1901 (cth), ss 30 , 36 , 68 , 132 , 153</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs tariff act 1982 (cth), ss 11 , 18 and 19</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 147">customs tariff act 1987 (cth), s 13 , 21 and 22</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">importation of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">customs offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">goods brought within three miles of coast</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">whether imported into australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">prohibited imports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">assembling to prevent seizure of prohibited imports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">possessing prohibited imports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">allowing ship to be used in importation of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">incidents occurring within three miles of australia coast</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">customs act 1901-1974 (cth), ss. 231, 233a, 233b.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">supreme court of northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">jurisdiction to hear charges under customs act 1901-1974 alleging acts committed within three miles of coast</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">whether admiralty jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">jurisdiction of supreme court of south australia on 1st january 1911</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">northern territory supreme court act 1961-1971 (cth), s. 15</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">judiciary act 1903-1969 (cth), s. 39 (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[1974] HCA 23">supreme court act 1856 (s.a.), s. 7.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">forfeited goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">carriage used in unlawful importation or conveyance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">whether knowledge of use by owner of carriage essential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">goods unlawfully imported by air placed in stationary vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">"unlawful importation"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">whether vehicle must be used to bring goods from air to land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">"unlawful conveyance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">whether vehicle must move with goods aboard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1971] HCA 60">customs act 1901-1968 (cth), s. 229 (j)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 320">customs and excise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 320">customs duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 320">where dutiable goods stolen from licensed warehouse while under control of customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 320">whether warehouse licensee "owner" of goods within definition in s 4(1) of customs act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 320">whether warehouse licensee entitled to remission of duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 320">whether defences available to demand under s 35a of customs act available.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 320" id="cs0">In Chief Executive Officer of Customs v John Deere Ltd [2006] FCA 1280 ; (2006) 155 FCR 208 (" John Deere ") , Jessup J analysed the effect on warehousing on the obligation to pay duty. In John Deere, the respondent's imported goods were entered for warehousing when duty was payable at 5% and subsequently entered for home consumption when, as a result of amendments, such goods were allegedly to be imported free. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 14 Customs flag</title>
<title id="l4">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 68 Entry of imported goods</title>
<title id="l5">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 99 Entry of warehoused goods</title>
<title id="l6">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 132 Rate of import duty</title>
<title id="l7">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 132AA When import duty must be paid</title>
<title id="l8">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 167 Payments under protest</title>
<title id="l9">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 273GA Review of decisions</title>
<title id="l10">CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l11">US FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION ACT 2004 </title>
<title id="l12">US FREE TRADE AGREEMENT IMPLEMENTATION (CUSTOMS TARIFF) ACT 2004 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">review of a magistrate's surrender determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">nature of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">precondition negatived in other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 2067">whether discretion to withhold relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">extradition request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">notice of receipt of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where two notices have been issued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued as a notice amending the first</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where second notice has been issued by a different minister to the first extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">first notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether discretion to issue notice was validly exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act 1988 (cth) required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">dual criminality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister needed to receive all the material provided by the extradition country in order validly to exercise his function in accordance with law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">relief to be granted in circumstances where notice has been found to be invalid extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">second notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where first notice has been found to be invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where detention of the person the subject of the request has become unlawful under ss 15 and 17 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether minister had power to issue amended notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the minister for justice and customs can exercise powers of attorney-general under s 16 of the extradition act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the statement of the conduct or acts or omissions of the person the subject of the request was sufficient to allow the minister to form the opinion which s 16(2)(a)(ii) of the extradition act required extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">where notice of receipt of extradition request has been found to be deficient in respect of certain paragraphs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether the notice is wholly or partly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">possibility of severance of notice under s 46(2) of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">division of portfolio responsibilities between two ministers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">effect of division</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether one minister authorised to exercise powers conferred by statute on the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">whether s 16 of the extradition act evinces a contrary intention for the purposes of s 19a(1) of the acts interpretation act  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices deficient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">severance of portions of either notice not possible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2007] FCA 1684">both notices wholly invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 99">extradition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 99">habeas corpus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 99">application not addressed to person with custody or control of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 99">onus to establish lawfulness of detention</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 99" id="cs0">3 On 21 December 2007 an Application was then made by the Republic of Finland to the Duty Judge of this Court for the arrest of the Applicant. That order was made pursuant to s 21(6)(e) of the 1988 Act and an Order For Arrest has since been executed. An Application for bail was refused by Rares J on 24 December 2007. The order then made by his Honour was that the Applicant was to be kept in custody up to and including 15 February 2007: Republic of Finland v Tervonen [2007] FCA 2107. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 15 Remand</title>
<title id="l2">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 16 Notice by Attorney-General</title>
<title id="l3">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Determination of eligibility for surrender</title>
<title id="l4">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 21 Review of magistrate's order</title>
<title id="l5">EXTRADITION ACT 1988 - SECT 46 Arrangements relating to magistrates</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">human rights and discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">racial vilification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">whether conduct of respondent rendered unlawful by s 18c of the racial discrimination act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">whether publication of material on world wide web reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate jewish people in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">whether first respondent has legal personality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">relief granted against second respondent practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">failure of respondent to file a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">copyright infringements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">sound recordings downloaded from files at remote websites accessed via links on an appellant's website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">nature of conduct constituting authorization</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">whether necessary to have power to prevent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">need for nexus between conduct and australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">held: an appellant operator and an appellant host of website authorized infringements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">an appellant director of host also liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 187">an appellant employee of host merely an employee and not liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">infringement of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">downloading of copyright music recordings from the internet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">no licence to download the music recordings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">music recordings stored on remote websites</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">cooper website provided hyperlinks to remote websites</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">internet users able to independently add hyperlinks to the cooper website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">cooper website was highly organised and contained charts of music recordings and search engines for music recordings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">cooper received free web hosting from e-talk/com-cen in return for advertising their logo on the website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">extent of knowledge of the other respondents of the content of the cooper website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">whether cooper directly infringed the exclusive right to communicate the sound recordings to the public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">whether respondents infringed copyright by authorising the infringements of copyright by the operators of the remote websites or the internet users who downloaded the music sound recordings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">whether respondents liable as joint tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">whether respondents sold or exposed for sale an article</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">meaning of "article"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">whether us free trade agreement implementation act 2004 (cth) applies retrospectively to this situation trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">whether website and/or domain name conveyed misrepresentations regarding the legality of downloading copies of the music sound recordings from the internet  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">rule in jones v dunkel [1959] hca 8 ; (1959) 101 clr 298</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2005] FCA 972">strengthening of adverse inferences by failure of the respondents to call witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">injurious falsehood</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">second defendant established blog website under a name disparaging of second plaintiff and invited comments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">prima facie case of malice and intention to cause damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">whether serious question to be tried that second defendant was the author or publisher of comments posted to website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">serious question whether statements or imputations conveyed were false.practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">whether special rule in relation to the restraint of defamatory publications applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">balance of convenience</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">form of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] NSWSC 636">injunction continued.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">human rights and discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">racial vilification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">proceedings to enforce determination of human rights and equal opportunity commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">hearing de novo of original complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">representative claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">necessity for class to be closed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">entitlement of applicant alone to institute proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether jews in australia constitute a group of people with common "ethnic origin"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether non-password protected website caused material to be `communicated to the public'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">meanings of the words offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">ordinary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether publication of material on website reasonably likely to offend or intimidate jews in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">objective test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">real effects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether "ethnic origin" one factor in the content of material on website  racial vilification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">applicable principles in determining whether material reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">principles of defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">objective test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether imputations would be conveyed to an ordinary reasonable reader  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">repeated failure of respondent to file a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">respondent unwilling to cooperate in bringing proceeding to trial  relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">utility of injunction to restrain internet publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether apology or retraction should be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">dow jones  company inc v gutnick  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">internet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">computer server</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of housed on computer server in united states of america</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">uploaded to world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">viewable at subscription news site on world wide web</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">downloaded to computer in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">whether material complained of was published in victoria.  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">single publication rule.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">law of the place of the tort ( lex loci delicti )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">damage to reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">where material complained of was published</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">material complained of made comprehensible when downloaded in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">place of plaintiff's reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victorian law governs substantive rights.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">rules of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service permitted without leave of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">conditions of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of tort committed in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action brought in respect of damage suffered in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">action limited to damage to reputation in victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">service validly effected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 56">victoria a convenient forum.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1042">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1042">performance by school students</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1042">circumstances in which school authorities liable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1042">publication by consent or approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1042">failure to stop performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 1042">questions for jury.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 502">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 502">transfer of case to federal court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 897">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 897">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 897">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 897">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 897">jones v dunkel considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 897">damages.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] QCA 295" id="cs0">[32] In Silberberg v Builders Collective of Australia Inc, [4] Giles J, after discussing the cases relied on by counsel for the respondents, expressed the view that in defamation or copyright cases, the administrator of a website would be likely to attract liability in respect of materials posted on the website by others even without knowledge of their content if the administrator:

"... chose to conduct an open anonymous forum available to the world without any system for scrutinising what was posted.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 502" id="cs1">I have taken this approach in considering the application made to me. The case made by both the applicant and the respondent is that a transfer is desirable in the interests of the administration of justice because the proceeding is likely to involve a question of general importance, such that it would be desirable for there to be a decision of the Federal Court on one or more of the points in issue. The law relating to the use of websites for the purposes of commentary so far as it touches claims made under the RDA does not appear to be settled. Both parties to this proceeding accept that the correctness and applicability of a decision of Gyles J in Silberberg v The Builders Collective of Australia Inc [2007] FCA 1512 would be an issue of significant controversy. In that case Gyles J concluded that a failure to remove offensive material from the website within a reasonable time was an act contrary to s.18C(1)(a) of the RDA. His Honour also found that it was necessary for the applicant to show that the failure to remove the offensive material was attributable to the race or ethnic origin of the applicant. Although his Honour made reference and considered cases which discussed whether a person who allowed comments to be posted on its website could be considered to have " published " those comments; Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [1999] EWHC QB 244 ; [2001] QB 201 ; [1999] 4 All ER 342 ; [2000] 3 WLR 1020 ; Kaplan v Go Daddy Group [2005] NSWSC 636 ; Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Cooper [2005] FCA 972 ; (2005) 150 FCR 1 ; Bunt v Tilley [2006] 3 All ER 336 ; Thompson v Australian Capital Television Pty Limited [1996] HCA 38 ; (1996) 186 CLR 574 , he did not make a finding that the placing of the material on the internet constituted publication. At [34] his Honour said: "Based on these authorities it is clear enough that failure to remove known offensive material would be caught by s 18C(1)(a) bearing in mind s 3(3). " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 897" id="cs2">In Silberberg v The Builders Collective of Australia Inc [56] [2007] FCA 1512 , also a racial discrimination case, Gyles J made no award of damages, only for costs and for certain restraints to be imposed. Similar orders were made by Conti J in Jeremy Jones, and on behalf of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry v The Bible Believers Church [2007] FCA 55. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18B Reason for doing an act</title>
<title id="l3">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18C Offensive behaviour because of race, colour or national or ethnic origin</title>
<title id="l4">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18D Exemptions</title>
<title id="l5">RACIAL DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 - SECT 18E Vicarious liability</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>