Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">use of interpreter in tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether interpretation of inadequate standard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether inadequacies in interpretation deprived appellant of fair opportunity to succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether failure to comply with tribunal's statutory obligation to invite appellant to appear before it to give evidence estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">res judicata estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">previous proceedings in respect of same decision of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether judgment given in default of appearance without hearing on merits finally determines cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether judgment given in default of appearance courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">time limitations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">proceeding remitted from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether time limits in high court rules applicable in federal magistrates court appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether appellant should have leave to add grounds of appeal not argued below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">grounds concerned inadequacy of interpretation at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">appellant previously without legal representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether appellant should be allowed to adduce further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">evidence of inadequacy of interpretation at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1240">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1240">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1240">singapore national fearing criminal prosecution and other harms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1240">tribunal finding that not covered by refugees convention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1240">no jurisdictional error found.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">interpreters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">allegation of inadequate interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">power of the court to appoint an expert. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">administration of highly specific questions by a tribunal member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether unfair</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether an indication of predisposition. migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 106">whether independent evidence used to falsify an answer is "information" within s 424a of the migration act 1958 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 106" id="cs0">72 It has been held that an inadequate standard of interpretation may interfere with the right of an applicant to present a case to the RRT to such a degree that jurisdictional error has occurred (see e.g. Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507 ; (1999) 92 FCR 6 ; WACO v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 171 ; (2003) 131 FCR 511 ( "WACO" )). Occasionally such an allegation upon examination sustains a conclusion that there has been a failure to afford the hearing which s 425 of the Act guarantees (see e.g. M175 of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1212). But the opposite conclusion may also be available (see e.g. Mazhar v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 1759 ; (2000) 183 ALR 188 at [39] , WACO at [63]-[69], SZKLX v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1414 at [12] ). Regardless of the outcome of different cases arising from different factual circumstances, however, the discussion in those cases reveals no real difference of principle. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 909">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 909">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 909">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 909">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 909">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">reliance on 'country information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal can use such information in assessing credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether such information the sole basis for tribunal's findings as to credit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">tribunal's duty to look at reasonably foreseeable future</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether subsequent developments can be relied on to vitiate tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether sufficient opportunity to deal with country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 10">whether tribunal biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">internal protection principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">well-founded fear of persecution not extending to whole country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">relocation in country of nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">reasonableness of relocation alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">nature of inquiry decision-maker required to undertake.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 65 Decision to grant or refuse to grant visa</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 420 Refugee Review Tribunal's way of operating</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1964">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1964">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1964">contract for sale and purchase of barley</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1964">second "washout" contract entered into</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1964">obligation sought to be avoided contained in washout contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1964">challenge to obligation pleaded in relation to contract for sale and purchase held: pleading deficient in relation to identifying source of obligation sought to be avoided</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1964">statement of claim struck out.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">motion for summary dismissal of proceedings pursuant to s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">whether no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">appropriate standard to be satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">the onus on party seeking summary judgment is heavy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">motion for pleadings in statement of claim be struck out pursuant to o 11 r 16(b) of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">whether a pleading has a tendency to cause embarrassment in the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">where pleadings are confusing and inconsistent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">leave granted to re-plead pleadings struck out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 905">applicant claims misleading and deceptive conduct by the respondent and breach of contract in relation to employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">level of particularity required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">the modern system of pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">whether it would be open to the applicant upon his statement of claim to prove facts at trial which would constitute a cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1429">no point of general interest involved.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">benefits for third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">equitable assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">revocable mandate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">grant of right to quarry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">provision for payment of royalties to landowner and his wife as joint tenants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">wife signatory to contract but giving no consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">nature of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">rights of wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">right to enforce after death of husband.  indemnity and contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">gift by husband to wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">matrimonial home bought by husband in joint names</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">mortgages in names of both spouses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">mortgages paid off by husband's executor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">right to contribution or indemnity from wife</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">intention of husband</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">presumption of advancement.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">gift of royalties received for right to quarry on blackacre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[1967] HCA 3">gift by will of income from trust fund with expression of wish that blackacre be appropriated to fund.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 484">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 307">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 307">right of entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 307">whether "premises" includes individual workstations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 307">summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 307">tests for.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">application by plaintiff to set aside orders made pursuant to s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) giving summary judgment in favour of two defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">where orders granting summary judgment had been subject of unsuccessful appeal to the full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">where plaintiffs claimed to have argument which had not been considered at first instance or on appeal which could lead to relief claimed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">where argument related to application of definition of derivative contained in s 761d of the corporations act 2001 (cth) to certain grain contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">whether summary judgments interlocutory for purpose of applications to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">discussion of test on application to set aside judgment under s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">where there was no explanation as to why new allegations had not been advanced at time of application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">where there were difficulties with new argument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 304">whether other claims not precluded by judgments should have been brought forward before application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 155">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 155">application by respondent for summary judgment pursuant to s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 155">or in the alternative to strike out pleadings under order 11 rule 16 (a) of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 155">whether a common law agreement is recognised as a "workplace instrument" for the purposes of the fair work act 2009 (cth) and whether applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting proceeding.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] VSC 473">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] VSC 473">application to strike out statement of claim on the ground that it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the proceeding and is an abuse of the court's process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] VSC 473">rule 23.02 of the supreme court (general civil procedure) rules 2005 ; and see rules 13.02 , 13.03 and 13.10 of these rules.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">alleged third line forcing by telecommunications companies ( telcos )</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">telcos allegedly offered to give (and gave) call credits on the condition that the customer would lease (and leased) equipment from a third party finance company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">telcos allegedly chose the finance company from a panel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether "another person" includes the plural</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether "another person" requires specified person/s</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether finance companies were knowingly concerned in telcos' contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">essential elements of the contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">knowledge of telcos' business method and of condition that equipment must be leased from a specified finance company or companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether bundle was a single package</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">call credits were given after lease agreement was approved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">futurity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">compulsion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">giving of call credits to customers who had already entered lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether future acquisition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">customer's awareness of the condition  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">applications by respondents for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">questions of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">application for strike out of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether pleading tends to cause prejudice, embarrassment or delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">leave to replead</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.22">citing from="[2010] FCA 919">whether pleading of business method appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">contract law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">obligations under a contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">whether performance of an obligation is satisfied by paying damages  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">chapter 7 of the corporations act 2009 (cth) (the "corporations act")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">requirement to issue a product disclosure statement ("pds")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">whether pds was required to be issued in relation to contracts for the sale and purchase of grain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">meaning of "financial product" under corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">meaning of "derivative" under corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">whether market rules or usual market practice allowed sellers' obligations to be closed out by matching up with offsetting obligation practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 100">circumstances in which an applicant must provide a factual basis for assertions in a statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">summary judgment application made by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">defence raised by respondent under s 123 of trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">moving party bears the onus in a summary judgment application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">consideration of the test under s 31a of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">respondent must show that because of the s 123 defence, the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">consideration of whether the evidence reveals a real issue of fact to be resolved for the respondent's defence to succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">while s 31a lowers the threshold for summary judgment applications, the court must ensure that litigants are not unjustly shut out from litigating an issue that is fairly arguable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">a pivotal fact raised by the respondent's defence not established and therefore respondent failed to discharge its onus  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">security for costs application made by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">applicant admitted to being impecunious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">security for costs opposed because applicant could not meet an order in the amount sought and that would stifle the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">staged payments found to be the best way to deal with the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">when summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) may be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether order for summary dismissal under s 31a is interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether leave to appeal should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether a further opportunity to amend a further amended statement of claim should be allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">consideration of interests of justice  held: leave to appeal necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 117">application for leave dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 693">the plaintiffs pay the costs of the fourth defendant to be assessed on a party and party basis in relation to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">extent of jurisdiction of the administrative appeals tribunal under s 55(1)(a) of the freedom of information act 1982 (cth) to review decisions or deemed decisions upon requests for access to documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">requests made to a university incorporated under a state act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">where respondent is not an agency within the meaning of s 4(1) of the freedom of information act 1982 (cth)  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">allegation of apprehended bias against primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the proceedings practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether a judgment for one party against another under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) is interlocutory within the meaning of s 24(1a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether, absent an order giving leave to appeal, a purported appeal should be dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 73">whether jurisdiction cannot be conferred upon the court by consent</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 484" id="cs0">The principal orders sought by the plaintiffs in the Amended Notice of Motion were that certain judgments I had given in favour of the third defendant and the fourth defendant respectively, pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), be set aside. My reasons for giving the judgments are set out in Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 56 ('Keynes (No 2)') ; [2009] FCA 567 ; 72 ACSR 264. The plaintiffs sought leave to appeal from my decision in Keynes (No 2) and the Full Court of this Court granted leave but dismissed the appeal: Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd [2010] FCAFC 100 ; [2010] FCAFC 100 ; (2010) 186 FCR 281. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 307" id="cs1">As Lord Woolf said in Swain v Hillman, ...that is not the object of the rule. It is designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all. " Mr White referred to the decision in Keynes and Others v Rural Directions Pty Ltd and Others (No.2) [2009] FCA 567 ; (2009) 72 ACSR 264 at [47] where Justice Besanko held that: "Where the plaintiff's cause of action depends on an arguable question of law then summary judgment may not be entered". Mr White referred to the decision in Fair Work Ombudsman v Maclean Bay Pty Ltd [2010] FCA 1378 at [10] and [11], where Justice Marshall stated: The discretion in s 31A should only be exercised in the clearest of cases, where there is a high degree of certainty that there are no reasonable prospects of a case being prosecuted successfully. 11.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 304" id="cs2">The Plaintiffs be refused leave to file and serve the Second Amended Statement of Claim against the Fourth Defendant. The plaintiffs seek an order that the above orders be set aside. On 16 June 2009 I made an order as follows: Pursuant to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), there be judgment for the fourth defendant against the plaintiffs in proceeding SAD 110 of 2008.
The plaintiffs seek an order that that order be set aside. My reasons for making the above orders are reported in Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567 ; 72 ACSR 264. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 155" id="cs3">As Besanko J said in Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567 at [47] :

 Where the plaintiff's cause of action depends on an arguable question of law then summary judgment may not be entered.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] VSC 473" id="cs4">38 Further, the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank Parties submitted that the powers granted to the Court under s 1022C are additional to and consequential upon the powers granted to it under s 1022B to award loss and damage, enabling the court to make consequential orders it thinks necessary to do justice between the parties. [35] It was submitted that s 1022C of the Act is not a standalone provision under which relief can be sought independently of s 1022B. It was said that an entitlement to relief under s 1022B is a prerequisite to reliance under s 1022C to seek other ancillary orders under s 1022C. More particularly, it was submitted that the "parties" in favour of or against whom relief may be granted under s 1022C are the "parties" subject to, or who obtain the benefit of, s 1022B of the Act. It was said that the words "between the parties" in s 1022C have to be given meaning [36] and, when read in context of Part 7.9 of the Act, particularly s 1022B, must be interpreted to mean the parties in favour of and against whom an award of loss or damage is sought under s 1022B. It was submitted that there is no basis for a wider construction which would permit the court to exercise its power under s 1022C to make an order in favour of a party seeking loss or damage under s 1022B against any third person. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 919" id="cs5">The relevance of issues of fact and questions of law in an application for summary judgment is clearly summarised by Besanko J in Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567 ; (2009) 72 ACSR 264 at [47] :

 ...It is sufficient for me to say that where a plaintiff's cause of action depends on a triable issue of fact then summary judgment will not be entered. Where the plaintiff's cause of action depends on an arguable question of law then summary judgment may not be entered. However, in the latter case where the court has had the benefit of submissions on the question of law and is able to decide the question then the court may proceed to do so on an application for summary judgment. Of course, the court must be alert to the possibility that, in truth, the determination of the question of law depends on a triable issue of fact. Furthermore, there may be other reasons why, in the particular circumstances of the case, the court will not decide an arguable question of law on an application for summary judgment.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 100" id="cs6"/>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 544" id="cs7">Nonetheless, I respectfully agree with the views expressed by a number of judges of this Court to the effect that I should proceed with caution when dealing with an application of this kind so as to ensure that Noble is not unjustly shut out from litigating an issue that is fairly arguable: see Boston Commercial at [45] to [46] per Rares J; Unit 11 Pty Ltd v Sharpe Partners Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 43 ; (2006) 150 FCR 405 at [64] per Tamberlin J; Granitgard Pty Ltd v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 55 at [9] per Logan J and Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 72 ACSR 264; [2009] FCA 567 at [47] per Besanko J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 117" id="cs8">42 In the carefully reasoned judgment of Rares J in Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2009] FCAFC 73 his Honour expressed the opinion that a judgment or order under s 31A(2) that determines that an applicant has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting a proceeding is interlocutory (at [101]). His Honour carefully reviewed the recent authorities on the question including Jefferson Ford Pty Ltd , White Industries , Berowra Holdings Pty Limited v Gordon [2006] HCA 32 ; (2006) 225 CLR 364 , Simundic v University of Newcastle [2007] FCAFC 144 , Zoia , Re Luck , Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 444 , Pham v Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCAFC 179 , Owners of The Ship "Shin Kobe Maru" v Empire Shipping Company Inc [1994] HCA 54 ; (1994) 181 CLR 404 , Dent v Australian Electoral Commissioner ; [2008] FCAFC 111 ; (2008) 249 ALR 523 , Wills v Australian Broadcasting Corporation , Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2008] FCA 991 and Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567 ; [2009] 72 ACSR 264. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 693" id="cs9">My reasons for concluding that Glencore Grain was entitled to summary judgment are set out in Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567. The present reasons should be read in conjunction with those reasons. In my view, none of the grounds upon which Glencore Grain succeeded are grounds which justify an order that costs be paid by the plaintiffs on an indemnity basis. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 73" id="cs10">110 In Jefferson Ford 167 FCR at 407-408 [128] Gordon J construed the word "may" in s 31A(1) and (2) as being used in its empowering sense, not in a discretionary sense. Her Honour demonstrated in that part of her reasons that once the moving party on a motion under s 31A had established that the other party had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting or defending the claim or proceedings, the Court had to give the moving party the remedy it sought as provided in s 31A. In other words, once the Court had reached such a finding, the moving party was entitled to judgment in accordance with it. On the other hand, in Bonnell v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2008] FCA 991 at [81] , Graham J held that the word "may" in s 31A confers a discretion: see too Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 567 at [46] - [47] per Besanko J. It is not necessary to reach a final view on this issue in order to deal with this matter.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 50 Related bodies corporate</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 761A Definitions</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 761B Meaning of arrangement--2 or more arrangements that together form a derivative or other financial product</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 761D Meaning of derivative</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 761G Meaning of retail client and wholesale client</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 762A Overview of approach to defining what a financial product is</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 763A General definition of financial product</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 763B When a person makes a financial investment</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 763C When a person manages financial risk</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 763D When a person makes non-cash payments</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 763E What if a financial product is only incidental?</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 764A Specific things that are financial products (subject to Subdivision D)</title>
<title id="l15">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 765A Specific things that are not financial products</title>
<title id="l16">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 913B When a licence may be granted</title>
<title id="l17">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 944A Situation in which Division applies</title>
<title id="l18">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 946A Obligation to give client a Statement of Advice</title>
<title id="l19">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 947A Title of Statement of Advice</title>
<title id="l20">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 947B Statement of Advice given by financial services licensee--main requirements</title>
<title id="l21">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 947C Statement of Advice given by authorised representative--main requirements</title>
<title id="l22">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1012B Obligation to give Product Disclosure Statement--situations related to issue of financial products</title>
<title id="l23">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013A Who must prepare Product Disclosure Statement</title>
<title id="l24">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013B Title of Product Disclosure Statement</title>
<title id="l25">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013C Product Disclosure Statement content requirements</title>
<title id="l26">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013D Product Disclosure Statement content--main requirements</title>
<title id="l27">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013E General obligation to include other information that might influence a decision to acquire</title>
<title id="l28">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1013F General limitations on extent to which information is required to be included</title>
<title id="l29">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1022B Civil action for loss or damage</title>
<title id="l30">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1022C Additional powers of court to make orders</title>
<title id="l31">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l32">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l33">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l34">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l35">SALE OF GOODS ACT 1895 </title>
<title id="l36">SALE OF GOODS ACT 1895 - SECT 50 </title>
<title id="l37">SALE OF GOODS ACT 1895 - SECT 51 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">defence and war</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">defence force retirement and death benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">pension paid during period of re-enlistment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">no entitlement to pension when re-enlisted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">overpayment of pension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">recovery of overpayment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">no fault of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">decision varied to waive tax instalment amounts of payments    defence force retirement and death benefits act 1973 (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] AATA 1652">ss 3 , 61c , 99 (2),(4), 126 (4),(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">appeal from administrative appeals tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">overpayment of supporting mother's benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">jurisdiction of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">whether relevant decision by director-general of social services to claim repayment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 81">meaning of "decision" under the administrative appeals tribunal act 1975 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">defence force retirement  superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">recipient member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">intention to resume continuous full-time service as a member of a reserve for less than 12 months</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">option to elect applicable superannuation scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">requirement for election prior to resuming service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">construction of 'must, before resuming service, in writing addressed to the authority, elect'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">no strict requirement for written election to be received by the authority prior to resumption of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">proof of written election prior to resumption of service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2011] AATA 291">decision set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 160">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 160">retirement schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 160">whether member of defence force remained an eligible member of the defence force retirement and death benefits scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 160">meaning of "valid election" for the purposes of s 61b(3) of the defence force retirement and death benefits act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 160">whether respondent a member of the military superannuation benefits scheme and disentitled to retirement pay otherwise payable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] AATA 548">defence force retirement  death benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] AATA 548">military superannuation benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] AATA 548">period of continuous full time service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] AATA 548">valid election under section 61b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] AATA 548">previous elections relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] AATA 548">no subsequent elections therefore necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2010] AATA 548">decision under review set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">applicant was a member of the defence force retirement and death benefits scheme whilst he served as a permanent member of the defence forces</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">he resigned and joined the army reserve</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">an election not to join the military superannuation and benefits scheme was not made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">deemed thereafter to be a member of msb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">paid dfrdb benefits whilst engaged in the reserves</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">decision of respondent not to have an entitlement to dfrdb benefits as a member of msb</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">overpayment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">administrative errors by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">matters to be considered if it decides to recover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">overpayment decision affirmed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2009] AATA 820">whether respondent should recover remitted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] AATA 291" id="cs0">The only guidance the DFRDB Act provides is the direction that the person 'must, before resuming service, in writing addressed to the Authority, elect whether or not to become a member of [the MSB Scheme]. ' The election to be made under 61B(3) for the purposes of the DFRDB Act and the MSB Act is a statutory right to opt out of the default MSB Scheme. This is a right that requires the exercise of choice. It is crystal clear that section 61B(3) imposes express limits on the exercise of that choice, once properly preconditioned, concerning the manner and the timeframe of the election, where failure to comply, or failure to elect, will result in the default statutory scheme being applied [21] . The election is to be made prior to the resumption of a period of service and it is to be in writing and addressed to the Authority. Satisfaction of these requirements does not require service of the written election on the Authority prior to the commencement of the period of service; service is not expressly or impliedly required by the section, nor do the objects and purposes of the DFRDB Act and the MSB Act require it. Nevertheless, for the election to be effective, it must be communicated to the Authority prior to the commencement of the particular period of service. I would not proceed too readily to accept any further limit on the exercise of the statutory right without express provision in the terms of the DFRDB Act or the MSB Act.  In reference to section 6(2) of the MSB Act, I note in passing that an 'eligible member of the Defence Force' is defined by section 3 of the DFRDB Act, but does not include a person who is excluded by operation of section 5A of that Act. Section 5A excludes a person who becomes a member of the Defence Force after 1 October 1991 or a member of a Reserve giving continuous full-time service of not less than 12 months after that date unless the person, relevantly, has made an election under section 61B. Following Chapman v Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority [15] and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority v Gregory [16] , paragraph 5A(1)(a) applies to Captain Marston's resumption of service on 4 January 2010 as a member of the Army Reserve. By operation of sections 4 , 30 and 31 of the Defence Act 1903 , on resuming service in the Army Reserve he became, again, a member of the Defence Force. Thus, section 6 of the MSB Act and paragraph 5A(1)(a) of the DFRDB Act will apply unless Captain Marston elected not to become a member of the MSB Scheme prior to resuming service, whereupon the exclusions in paragraph 5A(2)(b) of the DFRDB Act and paragraph 6(1)(c) of the MSB Act would have effect. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 160" id="cs1">It is convenient to commence by considering some of the authorities. The consequences of failing to make an election under s 61B of the old scheme were considered in detail in Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority v Gregory [2009] FCA 875 ; (2009) 179 FCR 535. In that case the respondent had served for more than twenty years in continuous full time service in the regular Army and retired on 28 October 2001. He transferred to the Army Reserve and was entitled to receive retirement benefits under the old scheme as a "recipient member" (s 23 of the DFRDB Act). Subsequently, on three separate occasions between 2003 and 2006, he resumed continuous full time service. When the respondent resumed service in 2003 he did not provide a written notice under s 61B(3) and, in default of notification he became by operation of s 5A(1)(a) of the DFRDB Act and s 6 of the MSB Act a contributing member of the new scheme. Due to an administrative error the respondent's pension was not suspended and he was paid $37,472. The respondent claimed that when he resumed service for four months he became an "eligible member of the Defence Force" under s 3(1) of the DFRDB Act and asserted that s 6(2) of the MSB Act operated to exclude him from the new scheme. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] AATA 548" id="cs2">The Respondent's position was straightforward: CDR Mathews had failed to make an election with respect to his preferred scheme before embarking upon his (third period) of CFTS. It relied on Strutt and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority [2007] AATA 1614 , where the Tribunal held to the effect that the failure to make a scheme election prior to resuming CFTS resulted in the person becoming a member of the MSB Scheme by operation of the law. Further, in Gregory and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority [2008] AATA 1053 , the Tribunal decided that there was no discretion to allow an Applicant to make a retrospective election whether or not to join the MSB Scheme or remain in the DFRDB scheme. The same view was expressed in Williams and Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority [2008] AATA 585. This interpretation of the DFRDB Act re-entry provisions has recently been confirmed by the Federal Court in Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority v Gregory [2009] FCA 875. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] AATA 820" id="cs3">Mr Dillon relied on a recent decision of the Federal Court in Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority v Gregory [2009] FCA 875 delivered on 18 August 2009 ( Gregory ) and contended that by reason of the applicant resuming the second period, it being for less than 12 months, he was not an eligible member of the DFRDB Scheme by reason of not having made an election and he was therefore deemed to be a member of the MSB Scheme pursuant to s 6 of the MSB Act. Accordingly, the applicant had no entitlement under the DFRDB Scheme and the respondent was entitled to recover retirement pay made under the DFRDB Scheme (and which was paid until 14 August 2008). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">DEFENCE ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l4">DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 31 Australian Army</title>
<title id="l5">DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 32 Regular Army</title>
<title id="l6">DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 32A Army Reserve</title>
<title id="l7">DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 45 Service of the Regular Army</title>
<title id="l8">DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 50 Service of the Army Reserve</title>
<title id="l9">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l10">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 3 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l11">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 5 Continuity of service</title>
<title id="l12">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 5A Persons excluded from definition of eligible member of the Defence Force</title>
<title id="l13">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 23 Entitlement to retirement pay</title>
<title id="l14">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 61B Election by recipient member intending to resume full-time service</title>
<title id="l15">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 61C Recipient member in receipt of retirement pay who becomes member of MSB scheme</title>
<title id="l16">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 99 Review of decisions of CSC</title>
<title id="l17">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 126 Recovery of amounts payable to Commonwealth</title>
<title id="l18">DEFENCE FORCE RETIREMENT AND DEATH BENEFITS ACT 1973 - SECT 132 Election to remain member of scheme or to join MSB scheme</title>
<title id="l19">MILITARY SUPERANNUATION AND BENEFITS ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l20">MILITARY SUPERANNUATION AND BENEFITS ACT 1991 - SECT 6 Membership of Superannuation Scheme</title>
<title id="l21">DEFENCE (PERSONNEL) REGULATIONS 2002 </title>
<title id="l22">DEFENCE (PERSONNEL) REGULATIONS 2002 - REG 121 Transitional arrangements for Australian Army</title>
<title id="l23">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">use of colour purple in confectionery market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">further hearing on remitter from full court after opinion experts as to consumer behaviour wrongly excluded evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 470">rule in browne v dunn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">claims of misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">whether appellant's connection with name 'mythbusters' sufficient to establish reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">name broadly descriptive, not distinctive to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">class of addressees is ordinary members of the television viewing public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">temporary or commercially irrelevant misapprehension of association due to use of name not misleading or deceptive conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">admissibility of opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">not admissible unless opinion based on specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether rule excluding opinion evidence as to matter of common knowledge is applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">operation of s 80 evidence act 1995 (cth) ('the act')</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">requirement to consider probative value of opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether evidence might cause or result in undue waste of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">discretion to exclude evidence under s 135 the acttrade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">competitors in retail chocolate market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">use of colour purple</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">principles relating to passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether exclusive reputation required under part v trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether use of colour purple likely to mislead or deceive consumers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 1099">ooooo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">ingredients</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">questions of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">relevance of "fraud" in the form of an intention to misappropriate rival trader's reputation as evidence from which an intention to deceive others and the likelihood of that deception may be inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">distinguished from "fraud" in a remedial context.   reckitt and colman products ltd v borden inc [1990] ukhl 12 ; (1990) 17 ipr 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">cons.   conagra inc v mccain foods (aust) pty ltd [1992] fca 159 ; (1992) 33 fcr 302</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">cons.   trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">trade practices act 1974 ss 52 and 53</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">passing off context</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">likelihood of deception</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">questions of fact.   injunction quia timet injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">persistence in assertion of the right to do a thing properly objected to as a ground for the grant of a quia timet injunction.   myers v casey [1913] hca 50 ; (1913) 17 clr 90</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1995] FCA 1175">cons.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">s.52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">use of name, symbol and get-up resembling those of rival trader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether word "kettle" was descriptive or had obtained a secondary meaning distinctive of one product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether sufficient steps taken to distinguish rival's product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether licensing others to use "kettle" resulted in loss of any exclusive right to word</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether fraudulent intent to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether jones v. dunkel inference could be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">damages or account of profits.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">trade practices act, section 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">use of name, symbol and get-up resembling those of rival trader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">names "the kettle chip" and "country kettle"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">test for comparison</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">likely effect upon ordinary person of respondent's packaging by virtue of possible imperfect recollection of applicant's packaging</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">inference to be drawn from risk deliberately undertaken by the respondent in choosing packaging very similar to that of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the respondent had taken sufficient steps to distinguish its product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether "kettle" is a descriptive word</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether in any case it has become distinctive of the applicant's product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">relevance of association of the word with a stylized symbol and the absence of any other brand name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the respondent's use of the word conveyed a falsehood</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">use of survey evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether modified packaging continued to pass off and to contravene s. 52 because it was sustained by and continued the impression created by the earlier packaging</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the sale of product made by the applicant on behalf of other traders and marked with a similar brand and logo, but without acknowledgment of the applicant's manufacture destroyed the distinctiveness of the brand name and logo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">effect of a significant section of the public understanding the name and logo as marks of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether all the goods manufactured by the applicant appeared to come from the same source, some being marketed by separate companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the existence in a section of the public of a belief that an applicant's name is also used by others destroys the basis of a claim in passing off or under s. 52 although another section of the public regards the name as distinctive of the applicant's goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the applicant by its own conduct had destroyed the distinctiveness of its name and device</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether a passing off action can be based upon a shared reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether a s. 52 action may be based on a shared reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether on the taking of an account of profits a respondent is entitled to rely on indirect benefits alleged to have been conferred on the applicant by its entry into the market served by the applicant.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">admissibility of survey evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">admissibility of statements out of court indicating that the maker of the statement had been deceived by the respondent's packaging.  words and phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">"kettle"  trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 52 and 53  ciba-geigy canada ltd v. apotex inc (1992) 24 ipr 652</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">bases and elements of passing off action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">whether carrying on business within jurisdiction or place of business within jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">sufficiency of nexus with the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">necessity and method of establishing reputation within jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">requirement of goodwill</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">whether fraud is a necessary element of passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">relevance of establishing fraud.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 159">relationship between reputation in passing off action and establishing misleading and deceptive conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">proprietorship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">prior use by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">public use indicating connexion in course of trade between goods and user</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">overseas company seeking to interest local manufacturer in new cigarette brand supplies cigarette packets and advertising material bearing name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">trade marks act 1955 (cth), s. 40(1).  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">implied term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensing agreement relating to manufacture and sale of brand of cigarettes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensor subsequently developing new variety of brand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether implied term that licensee would not hinder development of line extension of brand.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">fiduciary relationships</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensing agreement relating to manufacture and sale of brand of cigarettes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">licensor develops new brand and seeks to interest licensee in manufacture and sale of it in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">supply of samples and advertising material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether fiduciary relationship between parties in relation to trade name of new brand.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">unfair competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">unfair trading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1984] HCA 73">whether general cause of action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">conduct likely to mislead or deceive to whether conducting restaurant under a name similar to that of another restaurant was such conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 136">whether reputation in another country is relevant.  passing-off.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">name similar to that of company with established business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 (3), 52 *, 80 **, 82 .  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">principles to be applied.   * trade practices act 1974 (cth), s, 52 is set out at p. 22, post.  ** the relevant provisions of s. 80 are set out at pp. 221-222, post.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">nuisance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">conflict of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">view by judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">what constitutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">limits on use of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">experiment or demonstration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1954] HCA 14">supreme court rules 1939 (vict.) o. 50, r. 3.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">adoption of similar get-up for enhanced water products</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">no liability where allegedly appropriated features were in common use in enhanced water market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">adoption of features of competitors' get-up permissible where respondent's products sufficiently distinguished through branding and other means</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">no proof of relevant reputation in features allegedly appropriated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">no proof of deception amongst ordinary reasonable consumers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">no proof of intent to mislead</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 2">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">infringement of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">authorisation of infringement of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">passing-off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">granting leave to continue a proceeding under s 471b of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">level of complexity required for copyright to subsist in an artistic work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">calculation of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">factors to be considered in the calculation of additional/exemplary damages under s 115(4) of the copyright act 1968 (cth)   trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1298">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 2" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1298" id="cs1">The trader's reputation can be established even though purchasers of the goods do not know its name or have its name in mind when they purchase the goods. If the applicant's get-up has acquired a distinctive reputation, a respondent's use of the name or get-up conveys the misrepresentation that the goods are the applicant's, thereby harming the applicant's goodwill: Ricegrowers Ltd v Real Foods Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 639 ; (2008) 77 IPR 32 at 44-45. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">application by asic to wind-up corporation either on just and equitable ground or in insolvency and appoint official liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">application to adjourn that application pending meeting of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">application to remove allegedly misleading memorandum to creditors on the deed of company arrangement proposal for that meeting on personal website of two directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">whether court satisfied that it was in the interests of creditors to continue in administration rather than to wind-up the corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">whether deed of company arrangement should be proposed to creditors' meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">court not satisfied adjournment of winding up application in the interests of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">order that company be wound up on just and equitable ground</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">determination of other applications in respect of administrators' reports to creditors unnecessary   statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 269">corporations act 2001 (cth) ss 435a , 435c , 439a , 439c , 440a , 440d , 445d , 447a , 447b , 459a , 459p , 461 , 462 , 464 , 467 , 513</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">public access to documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic courtroom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic media court book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">federal court rules , o 46 r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">application for permanent stay of committal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">fourteen charges of indecent assault against medical practitioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">assault said to have occurred during the course of medical examinations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">charges relate to consultations that occurred in period 1960 to 1974 inclusive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">accused now retired from practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">patient records destroyed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">relevance of fact that court has declined to stay medical board investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">likelihood of prosecution failing to negative consent in some cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">special prejudice caused by loss of medical records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">stay order upheld.   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">application to restrain publicity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">importance of public hearing of matters before the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1995] FCA 1321">whether a special case for a restriction on reporting was shown.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 6 Appointment, removal and resignation of Judges</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 17 Exercise of jurisdiction in open court and in Chambers</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">bienstein v bienstein  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">removal of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">proceedings for adult child maintenance in family court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether a cause pending in a federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether matter arises under the constitution or involves its interpretation.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">appeal from decision of a single justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether leave to appeal is required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether order to refuse removal of proceedings is final or interlocutory.  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">application for disqualification of a justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">whether reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">justice had practised professionally in city where proceedings originated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 7">no imputed bias.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">muin v refugee review tribunal  lie v refugee review tribunal  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">decision by minister to refuse application for visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of decision by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">obligation of secretary of department of immigration and multicultural affairs to give relevant documents to registrar of tribunal for purpose of review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">nature and extent of obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration act 1958 (cth), ss 418(3) , 424 (1).  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">review of administrative decision by officers of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">refusal to grant protection visa to claimant for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">requirement of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to have regard to relevant documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">alleged failure to provide reasonable opportunity to respond to adverse materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 30">availability of constitutional relief under s 75(v) and other relief for denial of procedural fairness and natural justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1322">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1322">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1322">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1322">application for reinstatement of judicial review application following dismissal for non appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1322">applicant attempting to secure second review of delegate's decision by the rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1322">no serious issue to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1322">reinstatement application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1322" id="cs0">Applicant lodges application for leave to appeal decision of Sackville J 1 March 2006 Federal Court dismisses application for leave to appeal [ S231/2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 269 , 1 March 2006, per Rares J] 14 March 2006 Applicant files an application in the RRT seeking review of the same decision of the delegate (ie dated 26 February 1996) 3 July 2006 RRT determines that it has no jurisdiction 11 July 2006 Applicant lodges application in Federal Magistrates Court seeking review of decision of RRT (SYG 1919 of 2006) 9 August 2006 Driver FM dismisses application pursuant to Rule 13.03A(c) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 as applicant does not appear 30 August 2006 Applicant lodges present application for reinstatement. An application for leave to appeal was also dismissed by Rares J (see S231/2003 v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 269 ,1 March 2006).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">saap  anor v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">decision of refugee review tribunal ("tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal invited the first appellant to appear to give evidence and present arguments under migration act 1958 (cth), s 425</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">evidence was later taken from first appellant's daughter in absence of first appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal affirmed decision under review by relying on information obtained from first appellant's daughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to give the first appellant particulars in writing of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal failed to invite the first appellant in writing to comment on information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached migration act , s 424a.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">construction of migration act , s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the provisions of pt 7 div 4 have sequential or ambulatory operation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevance of refugee convention in case of ambiguity.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether a breach of migration act , s 424a amounts to jurisdictional error that invalidates the decision.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether tribunal breached rules of procedural fairness.  administrative law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether grant of relief should be withheld on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">relevant factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s 39b.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">joinder of party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">tribunal was not named as a party for the relief sought under judiciary act , s 39b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">whether the tribunal was a necessary party to the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">"officer or officers of the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2005] HCA 24">judiciary act , s 39b.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">list of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">verification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">company and wholly owned subsidiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">whether officer of company able to verify list on behalf of subsidiaries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">related proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">order that they be heard together and that orders in one be taken to be orders in the others as well</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">order in one that applicants file "a list of documents"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">whether each applicant obliged to file a list</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">masking by discovering party of parts of documents on ground of irrelevance of masked material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1335">propriety</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 477 Powers of liquidator</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1387">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1387">application by a company to convene meetings of shareholders and optionholders to consider schemes of arrangement effecting change of location of the business to united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">application for order under s 411(1) of corporations act 2001 (cth) that company convene meeting of members to consider proposed scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">term of scheme that "to the extent permitted by law" shares will vest in acquiring company free of interests of third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1104">discussion of such a term.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">application for order under s 411(1) of the corporations act 2001 (cth) that company convene meeting of its members to consider scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">consideration of particular factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">"no-shop restriction"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">"break fee"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 770">deemed warranty that shares are free from encumbrances and that shareholders are entitled to transfer them held : order made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">schemes to effect a takeover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">approval of the distribution of the scheme booklet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">expert's report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">whether offer "fair" where on upper range of valuation the consideration value is less than the target share value</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">asic regulatory guide 111</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">takeover bids</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">range of values</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">asic rg 111.9, rg 110.10, rg 111.11, rg 111.62 and rg 111.63</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] VSC 154">sections 411(1) , 412 (6) and 412 (8) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 154" id="cs0">This is comparable to other recent proposed schemes of arrangement, such as Symbion Health's scheme which had a 6 month lock up period, with Symbion Health having discretion to extend this period up to 9 months;

b. there is, as required by Santow J, a carve out in relation to directors' fiduciary duties --- see clause 16.3 of the SIA, which provides for carve outs where either the Dyno Nobel Board or the Incitec Pivot Board has:

determined, in good faith and acting reasonably, that failing to respond in any way to that Competing Proposal for Incitec Pivot would be likely to cause the [Dyno Nobel/Incitec Pivot] Directors to breach their fiduciary duties;

c. both Dyno Nobel and Incitec Pivot considered that this clause was a prerequisite to entry into the SIA (see clause 16.4 of the SIA); and

d. the exclusivity period has been adequately disclosed in the explanatory statement to go to shareholders and optionholders --- see section 1.9 of the draft Scheme Booklet. No encumbrance

(8) Clause 4.4 of the Share Scheme provides that:

To the extent permitted by law, all of the Scheme Shares will vest in [Incitec US Holdings] free from all mortgages, charges, liens, encumbrances and interests of third parties of any kind, whether legal or otherwise, and restrictions on transfer of any kind. (9) This type of clause has been accepted by the Federal Court in several recent cases, including Re Investa Properties Limited [9] and HPAL Limited [10] . We also understand that, although not referred to in the judgments, there was a similar clause in the Coles scheme of arrangement (clause 4.2(b) of the Coles scheme of arrangement) which was approved by Robson J recently: see Re Coles Group Limited [11] ( Coles Group No 1 ) and Re Coles Group No 2. [12]

 Deemed warranty

(10) Clause 8.6 of the Share Scheme states that:

Each Scheme Participant is deemed to have warranted to [Incitec US Holdings] that all of their Scheme Shares (including any rights and entitlements attaching to those shares) will, at the date of the transfer of them to [Incitec US Holdings], be fully paid and free from all mortgages, charges, liens, encumbrances and interests of third parties of any kind, whether legal or otherwise, and restrictions on transfer of any kind, and that they have full power and capacity to sell and to transfer their Scheme Shares together with any rights and entitlements attaching to such shares.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 411 Administration of compromises etc.</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 - REG 3.4 Notice of hearing (Corporations Act s 411 (4), s 413 (1)) -- Form 6</title>
</legistitles>
</case>