Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">high court and federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">order for separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">o 29 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">questions of construction, validity and power to provide for releases by creditors of third parties in deed under corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">factors to consider in ordering separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">whether questions would be hypothetical</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">nature of evidence to be led by parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">importance of the court ensuring efficient use of time and minimising costs in litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">full hearing of all issues at trial including those associated with the separate questions would involve substantial costs that may be avoided by ordering separate determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">public interest in the prompt determination of questions of administrators' and creditors' rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">separate questions are self-contained questions of construction and statutory interpretation not calling for extensive evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">answers to questions may provide definitive answer to one substantial element of controversy   high court and federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">s 25(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">whether separate questions should be reserved for consideration by a full court sitting in the original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">importance of minimising potential for delay and expense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">utility of separate questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">public interest in the prompt determination of questions concerning administrators' and creditors' rights and obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">reserving questions for consideration by a full court will ensure expeditious resolution of separate questions    corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">deeds of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.26">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">pt 5.3a corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.27">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">questions of construction and validity of deed under pt 5.3a to be decided on a separate question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.28">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">clause providing that upon payment under deed creditors release third parties and other creditors from liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.29">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">clauses prohibiting, or providing moratorium inhibiting, creditors from pursuing rights against third parties including statutory rights to enforce charges over insurance money payable in respect of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.30">cited from="[2009] FCA 784">power under pt 5.3a for deed of company arrangement to provide for creditors to release third parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">costs of responding to subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">matters relevant to such consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">what conduct is relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">when recipient of subpoena subsequently becomes a party to the proceedings costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">entitlement to costs of party answering subpoena</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">what considerations should be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">what conduct is relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2009] NSWSC 156">when recipient of subpoena subsequently becomes party to proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">appeal from decision of a single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">discretion to award costs under s 43(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">factors in exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where respondents to claim of unjustified threats brought cross-claim for infringement of patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where new parties joined much later as respondents to cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where cross-claim not actively defended by newly joined cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where defence of inactive cross-respondents denied infringement and validity of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where cross-claimants successful against all cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where active and inactive cross-respondents made liable jointly and severally for cross-claimant's costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where primary judge held it to be settled law that liability for payment of costs order ordinarily joint and several</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">where primary judge considered whether inactive cross-respondents raised a separate and distinct defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">whether inactive cross-respondents submitting parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">whether exercise of discretion to award costs miscarried held: inactive cross-respondents not submitting parties in circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">discretion to award costs pursuant to s 43(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) is broad</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">no automatic rules for exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">need for order to be just in circumstances of particular case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">lack of separate and distinct defence not determinative of whether liability for payment of costs order should be joint and several</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">exercise of discretion miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">no sufficient basis for making inactive cross-claimants liable for costs of proceedings in period prior to their joinder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">defence of inactive cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">cross-claimants had to prove case in greater detail in any event because of stance of active cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">appeal allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 5">liability of inactive cross-respondents to pay costs reduced to 10 percent on joint and several basis with active cross-respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">practice (n.s.w)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">litigant in person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">compensation for time spent in preparation and conduct of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">whether entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 14">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w), ss. 19(1) , 76(1) supreme court rules 1970 (n.s.w), pt 52 , r. 23(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 604">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 604">compromises and arrangements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 604">costs of proceeding for approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 604">whether order may be made against person not party to the proceeding.  federal court of australia act 1976</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 604">s.43  corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 604">s.1335(2)  federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 604">o.71 r.10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 48">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 48">application for costs against a non party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 48">jurisdiction to award costs against non-parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 48">discretion to award costs against non-parties</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 48" id="cs0">Similarly, in City of Swan v Lehman Bros Australia Ltd (No 3) [2009] FCA 1190 (at [13]), Rares J concluded that under s 1337S(1)(c) CA, the Court's rule making powers under s 59 FCA were extended 'without limitation, with respect to costs'. It followed that the width of the costs powers in s 1337S(1)(c) CA could extend to non-parties despite the word 'parties' in s 1335(2) CA. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 444B Execution of deed</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 556 Priority payments</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1335 Costs</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1337S Rules of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 59 Rules of Court</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">appointment of judicial officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">abolition of one set of inferior courts and substitution of another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">policy to appoint stipendiary magistrates of former courts as magistrates of new courts unless unfit for judicial office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">decision not to appoint former stipendiary magistrate set aside for failure to accord natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">reconsideration of case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">change of appointment policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">applicants to be judged on merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">whether former stipendiary magistrate entitled to reconsideration of application on basis of former or current policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 21">local courts act 1982 (n.s.w.), s. 12.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">licence for commercial broadcasting station</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">transfer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">consent of australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">discretion to refuse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">concentration of ownership of broadcasting stations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 17 (1), 89a (1), 90c (1), (3).  administrative bodies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">broadcasting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">supervisory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">licensing functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">transfer of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">discretion to refuse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">unqualified by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1979] HCA 62">matters relevant to decision.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l3">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l6">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l7">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 5 Tenure of Commissioner and Second Commissioners</title>
<title id="l8">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZU How taxation objections are to be made</title>
<title id="l9">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZK Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1330">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1330">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1330">restraining from importing distributing supplying offering for sale or selling goods of a same design and appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1330">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1330">breach of ss 52 and 53 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth).   evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1330">hearsay expert opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1330">need to comply with ss 76 and 79 of the evidence act 1995 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1330" id="cs0">As a separate matter, I should indicate that I do not accept that by reason of the operation of O 58 r 31 of the Rules of Court that the evidence sought to be introduced by the applicants on this issue (including the Falcon tests) should be rejected. The Rule would not prevent this Court from considering the Flacon tests sought to be introduced by the applicants if they otherwise complied with the requirements of the Evidence Act : see generally Bayer Bioscience NV v Deltapine Australia Pty Ltd (No.2) [2006] FCA 1762 ; (2006) 71 IPR 40 per Heerey J. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 135 General discretion to exclude evidence</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">construction of company's articles of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">whether articles require compliance with pre-emptive rights regime for share buy-back</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">relevant circumstances at time of buy-back</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 144">whether regard may be had to extrinsic materials in interpreting articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1309">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1309">oppressive or unfair conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1309">what constitutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1309">whether action to delist company amounts to unfair conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1309">continuation of conduct at time of proceeding not necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1309">appropriate relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">exclusive sub-licence of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">sub-licensor sold business to trade competitor of sub-licensee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">sale included assignment of the benefit of the sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">no novation of sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">validity of assignment of the sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">sub-licensee in breach of sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether assignee obtained the contractual right to terminate for breach contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">assignment of contractual rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether all contractual rights, powers and privileges of assignee are proprietary in character and are prima facie assignable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">extent to which individual rights, powers and privileges separately assignable contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">assignment of contractual rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether sub-licensor's identity was material to the contract or its performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">construction of the sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">assignment precluded without the consent of the sub-licensee contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">assignment of contractual right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether contractual power to terminate for breach severable and capable of independent assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether an integral part of the sub-licensor's bundle of rights contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">breach of sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether purported termination for breach effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether sub-licensee's conduct repudiatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">waiver or estoppel trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">assignment of benefit of exclusive sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">construction of the sub-licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 40">whether it precluded assignment without sub-licensee's consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">passive investors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">whether directors' remuneration and restriction of dividends oppressive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2001] WASC 8">turns on own facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">management and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">appeal against successful oppression application by minority shareholder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">whether commercial unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">whether allotments of shares made at under value</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">using company assets to secure debts of others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">removal of shareholder as director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">fair value of shareholding   appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">role of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">findings based on credibility of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">findings not vitiated by erroneous admission of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1995] FCA 1447">appropriate contents of notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">proposal for corporate reorganisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">"demutualization" and issue of shares or cash</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">prospectus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">reasonable expectation of members of full and fair disclosure for the making of properly informed judgment on the proposal.   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">"control" of corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1397">meaning thereof.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">allowable deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">trading stock</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">share trader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">bonus shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">capital paid up from dividend entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">dividend exempt from tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">cost of bonus shares to taxpayer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">arrangement to avoid liability for tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">fiscal nullity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 6(1) "trading stock", 44(2), 51, 260.  precedent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">stare decisis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">departure from previous decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1989] HCA 4">relevant considerations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">issue and allotment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">powers of directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">bona fides of exercise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">ulterior purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">article vesting powers of directors in named governing director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">issue and allotment of shares by governing director to provide for control after his death</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">articles requiring new shares to be offered to existing shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">application to allotment of part of original capital.  companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">statutory requirement for more than one director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">powers of directors vested in governing director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">whether conflict with statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1987] HCA 11">companies act 1961 (q), s. 114.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">incorporated controlling body of professional football competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">member club</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">decision to exclude member club from competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">power in articles to exclude</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">whether exclusion oppressive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 68">companies (new south wales) code, s. 320(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">rescission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">right to rescind conferred by contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">whether to determine contract or to treat it as subsisting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">unequivocal conduct with knowledge of facts giving right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">exercise of right to rescind precluded.  vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">term conferring right to rescind if it were established that at date of contract property affected by planning scheme otherwise than as stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">statement that property affected as shown in annexed certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">no certificate annexed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">election to determine contract or to treat contract as subsisting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">unequivocal conduct with knowledge of facts giving right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.15">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">imputation to clients of solicitor's knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.16">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">exercise of right to rescind precluded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">management</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">articles of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">compliance therewith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">increase in number</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">qualification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">defect in appointment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">validation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">issue of further</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">restriction on transfer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">transfer to non-members of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.17">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">breach of articles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.18">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">right of member to restrain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.19">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.20">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">rectification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.21">cited from="[1950] HCA 54">companies act 1936 (n.s.w.) (no. 33 of 1936), ss. 83, 124.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">unfair discrimination of shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">sale of shares at a gross under value and unfair price</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">proposals not in the best interests of the company as a whole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">unjustifiable management and consulting fees corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">order for buy out of company shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">corporations act 2001 (cth), s 233(1) confers power to make a buy out order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">power to make buy out order not to be read in a way that makes implications or imposes limitations not found in express words of s 233(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">trial judge's discretionary judgment to make order for one party to buy the other out the least intrusive and most appropriate remedy corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">valuation of shares in buy out orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">court not obliged to accept the evidence of a particular valuer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">whether failure to have regard to the occurrence of global financial crisis in fixing valuation date is an error by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">court not obliged to require expert share valuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">primary judge's role not to direct either side on what evidence it should tender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 9">primary judge not bound to include in his valuation a figure for the whole or a portion of any unjustified and excessive fees paid for services</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] SASC 223" id="cs0">Held: Fourth defendant's rights and obligations under the shareholders' deed as amended are incidents of the shares over which first defendant holds its securities --- first defendant as mortgagee is as bound by the shareholders' deed as amended, to which the shareholders and the company were parties, as it is by the company's constitution --- first defendant therefore has no greater interest than fourth defendant in the shares --- by granting charge to first defendant over the shares, fourth defendant committed a default event pursuant to shareholders' deed as amended giving rise to plaintiff's equitable interest in the shares --- first defendant is therefore bound by plaintiff's exercise of option to acquire the shares --- plaintiff is entitled to the equitable interest in the shares --- fourth defendant should transfer the shares to plaintiff --- fifth defendant should register that transfer --- on the transfer of the shares, first defendant will have no further interest in or right over the shares. Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 9 , s 53 , s 107 , s 111J , s 134 , s 136 , s 140 , s 233 , s 249A , s 249L , s 254D s 1322 ; Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) s 14B , referred to. Adelaide Building Co Pty Ltd (in liq) v ABC Investments Pty Ltd and Anor (1990) 8 ACLC 445 ; Allen v Gold Reefs of West Africa Ltd [1900] 1 Ch 65 ; Australian Associated Motor Insurers Ltd v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2002] FCA 1061 ; (2002) 124 FCR 518 ; Bluebottle UK Limited v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2007] HCA 54 ; (2007) 232 CLR 598 ; Bridge Wholesale Acceptance Corporation (Australia) Ltd v Burnard (1992) 27 NSWLR 415 ; Carew-Reid v Public Trustee (1996) 20 ACSR 443 ; Cockell v Taylor [1852] EngR 93 ; (1852) 15 Beav 103 ; 51 ER 475 ; Grant v John Grant and Sons Pty Ltd (1950) 82 CLR 1 ; Government of Newfoundland v The Newfoundland Railway Company (1888) 13 App Cas 199 ; Inland Revenue Commissioners v Crossman [1937] AC 26 ; ITC Limited v Timbercorp Limited (in liquidation) [2009] SASC 342 ; J C Williamson Ltd v Lukey and Mulholland [1931] HCA 15 ; (1931) 45 CLR 282 ; Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd v Coopers Brewery Ltd [2006] FCAFC 144 ; (2006) 156 FCR 1 ; Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45 ; (1981) 147 CLR 589 ; Puric v State of South Australia [2009] SASC 107 ; Ramsay v Pigram [1968] HCA 34 ; (1967) 118 CLR 271 ; Rani v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 1493 ; (1997) 80 FCR 379 ; Rathner v Lindholm [2005] VSC 399 ; (2005) 194 FLR 291 ; Redman v The Permanent Trustee Company of New South Wales Limited [1916] HCA 47 ; (1916) 22 CLR 84 ; Relwood Pty Ltd v Manning Homes Pty Ltd (No 2) [1992] 2 Qd R 197 ; Russell v Northern Bank Development Corporation (1992) 3 All ER 161 ; Socit Gnrale De Paris v The Tramways Union Company Ltd (1884) 14 QBD 424 ; Southern British National Trust Limited (in liquidation) v Pither [1937] HCA 28 ; (1937) 57 CLR 89 ; Stylus v United Medical Protection [2007] NSWCA 109 ; Territory Realty Pty Ltd v Garraway [2009] FCA 292 ; Tooth v Brisbane City Council [1928] HCA 20 ; (1928) 41 CLR 212 ; W  R Pty Ltd v Birdseye [2008] SASC 321 ; (2008) 102 SASR 477 ; Wallace v Evershed [1899] 1 Ch 891 ; Walton Stores (Interstate) Ltd v Maher [1988] HCA 7 ; (1988) 164 CLR 387 ; In re White Rose Cottage [1965] Ch 940 ; Wood v W  G Deane Pty Ltd [1929] HCA 44 ; (1929) 43 CLR 77 ; White v Shortall (2006) 68 NSWLR 650 , considered. WORDS AND PHRASES CONSIDERED/DEFINED

"share"

 ELDERS FORESTRY LTD v BOSI SECURITY SERVICES LTD  ORS
 [2010] SASC 223

 Civil

 KOURAKIS J :

 Introduction
 In proceedings which were before me late last year, the plaintiff (ITC) and the fourth defendant (Timbercorp) contested the validity and lawfulness of ITC's notice of 30 September 2009 of the exercise of its option to acquire 50,000 shares in the fifth defendant (PPT) registered in the name of Timbercorp (the default option). On 6 November 2009, I delivered written reasons finding for ITC and, on 18 November 2009, I made orders declaring that ITC had validly and lawfully given notice of the exercise of the Default Option pursuant to cl 7.2 of the Shareholders' Deed dated 13 September 2005, as supplemented and amended by a Supplemental Deed dated 18 September 2007. The extent to which the context in which a constitution is made can be considered will, in my view, vary according to the nature and shareholding of the company. [12] I respectfully agree with the observations of Mansfield J in Territory Realty Pty Ltd v Garraway [13] to the effect that the circumstance that a company is a "quasi-partnership" is an important part of the context in which to construe provisions which are calculated to control the internal management of the company. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 9" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 739" id="cs2">On 1 April 2009 I published reasons for judgment in this matter: Territory Realty Pty Ltd v Garraway [2009] FCA 292 (the primary judgment). On 6 May 2009 I made orders giving effect to those reasons. The only issue that remains to be dealt with is the costs of the proceeding. That is the subject of these reasons. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 16 Exclusions</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 113 Proprietary companies</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 175 Correction of registers</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 223 Proposed resolution cannot be varied</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 232 Grounds for Court order</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 233 Orders the Court can make</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l8">LIMITATION ACT </title>
<title id="l9">LIMITATION ACT - SECT 21 Equitable relief</title>
<title id="l10">LIMITATION ACT - SECT 44 Extension of periods</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">aborigines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">compensation claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">nature of native title rights and interests extinguished</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">criteria for identification of native title holders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">criteria presented in application and points of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">evidence insufficient to support existence of traditional laws and customs asserted in criteria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">whether trial judge ought to have determined pre-existing native title on other bases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">function of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">inability of court to undertake general inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">whether trial judge misunderstood pleaded case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">no error by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">notice of contention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">whether registration of title under real property act 1886 ( sa) validly extinguished native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">effect of indefeasibility provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 101">effect of validation provisions of native title act and validation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1683">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1683">further application for an interim injunction to restrain the conduct of an authorisation meeting to be held at hope vale convened by the cape york land council in connection with a native title determination application by the dingaal claim group.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1418">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1418">application for an interim injunction to restrain the conduct of an authorisation meeting at hope vale convened by the cape york land council in connection with a native title determination application by the dingaal claim group.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS (ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER) ACT 2006 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l2">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 50 Bodies that may determine compensation</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 56 Determination whether native title to be held in trust</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 57 Determination of prescribed body corporate etc.</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 58 Functions under regulations</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 84C Striking out applications for failure to comply with requirements of this Act</title>
<title id="l8">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 84D Proceedings affected by possible defect in authorisation</title>
<title id="l9">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 87 Power of Federal Court if parties reach agreement</title>
<title id="l10">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 193 Contents of the Register</title>
<title id="l11">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 227 Act affecting native title</title>
<title id="l12">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 251B Authorising the making of applications</title>
<title id="l13">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 253 Other definitions</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l15">NATIVE TITLE (PRESCRIBED BODIES CORPORATE) REGULATIONS 1999 </title>
<title id="l16">NATIVE TITLE (PRESCRIBED BODIES CORPORATE) REGULATIONS 1999 - REG 7 Functions of registered native title body corporate not acting as trustee (Act s 57)</title>
<title id="l17">NATIVE TITLE (PRESCRIBED BODIES CORPORATE) REGULATIONS 1999 - REG 8 Consultation with, and consent of, common law holders</title>
<title id="l18">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l19">ABORIGINAL COUNCILS AND ASSOCIATIONS ACT 1976 No. 186 of 1976 - SECT 73 Order declaring vacant offices of councillors, </title>
<title id="l20">CORPORATIONS (ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER) CONSEQUENTIAL, TRANSITIONAL AND OTHER MEASURES ACT 2006 (NO. 125, 2006) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">access by liquidator to corporate group documents seized by australian securities and investments commission under statutory powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">no dispute by asic as to liquidators' entitlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">large number of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">failed corporate group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">generalised objection to release by third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">third party not appearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">access proposed on conditions providing for third party applications to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">appropriateness of proposed orders to court in relation to release and attached conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">ambulatory third party dispute resolution scheme inappropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">citing from="[2007] FCA 709">application dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 709" id="cs0">18 Hotchkin Hanley did not respond to ASIC's letter of 8 March 2007. Ferrier Hodgson responded but did not pursue its previous concerns. Mr Carey and Ms Carey, through their solicitors Mony de Kerloy, wrote to ASIC on 9 March 2007 asserting that the Westpoint documents might contain legally privileged information and that to obtain appropriate advice their clients required funding from moneys held by Healthcare Properties Pty Ltd (Healthcare). ASIC rejected this contention on 13 March 2007. An application for release of funds from Healthcare was refused in my judgment on 17 April 2007: Australian Securities  Investments Commission; In the matter of Richstar Enterprises Ltd v Carey (No 15) [2007] FCA 544. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1323 Power of Court to prohibit payment or transfer of money, financial products or other property</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">application for approval of "controlled action" under the environmental protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">whether assessment of proposal was properly made under a bilateral agreement between commonwealth and northern territory when bilateral agreement came into force after decision of minister for environment and heritage that proposal was controlled action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">whether assessment of proposal should have been made under pt 8 of epbc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">held: assessment of proposal properly made under bilateral agreement administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">assessment of proposal to redevelop mine which required approval of minister for environment and heritage under epbc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">proposal assessed under bilateral agreement between commonwealth and northern territory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">assessment report to minister expressed concerns about environmental impacts of proposal upon freshwater sawfish and migratory bird species</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">whether report "assessment report" under epbc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">whether it did not contain sufficient information for minister to decide whether or not to approve proposal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">where report adequately presented material in environmental impact statement, public comments, and proponent's response to public comments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">whether minister sought further information from proponent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">held: report was a valid assessment report for minister's consideration administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">decision of minister for environment and heritage to approve proposal constituted a controlled action under epbc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">minister failed to take into account conditions imposed by northern territory upon its approval to mine redevelopment comprising proposal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">minister imposed conditions upon approval consistent with conditions imposed by northern territory in respect of potential environmental impacts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">whether minister's decision invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">held: minister's decision valid as consideration of northern territory conditions could not have made a material difference to minister's decision, and epbc act requiring minister to take into account conditions imposed by northern territory did not provide that the failure to do so necessarily led to invalidity of decision environmental law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">processes for approval of proposal which was a controlled action under the epbc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">consideration of whether assessment of proposal under bilateral agreement correct, rather than under pt 8 of epbc act, where decision of minister that proposal was a controlled action was made before bilateral agreement came into force</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">consideration of necessary contents of an assessment report required under epbc act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">consideration of whether failure of minister to take into account conditions imposed by northern territory upon its approval to mine redevelopment constituting proposal resulted in invalidity of minister's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2008] FCA 903">consideration of principles of ecologically sustainable development and the precautionary principle and whether minister had regard to them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">s 43 federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">circumstances justifying departure from the general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">public interest litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 19">held: unsuccessful appellant ordered to pay a percentage of each respondent's costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">public interest litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">applicant brought proceeding in public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">applicant wholly unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">whether public interest nature of proceeding sufficient reason to deny costs to successful respondents. held : costs awarded to the successful respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1863">public interest considerations relevant but not sufficient to alter usual rule that costs follow the event.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1999] WASCA 55">prerogative writ</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1999] WASCA 55">prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1999] WASCA 55">costs orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1999] WASCA 55">unsuccessful applicant not protected from costs orders on grounds of public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1999] WASCA 55">no ground for special order as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">oshlack v richmond river council  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">statutory power under environmental planning and assessment legislation to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">"public interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">significant issues of interpretation of that legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">whether discretion with respect to costs miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has jurisdiction to order costs against a third party under s.43 of federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has jurisdiction to discipline practitioners appearing or acting in matters before it.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 471">whether court has power to make an order for costs against a solicitor after judgment entered and order made for costs to be paid by one of the parties to the litigation.  family law act 1975 sub-s.117(2)  federal court of australia act 1976 ss.4 , 5 , 22 , 23 , 32 , 43 ; sub-s.43(1)  judiciary act 1903 ss.26 , 55b , 55c , 80 ; sub-s.55b(3)  supreme court act 1981 s.51; sub-s.51(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">award jurisdiction against non-party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">receiver and manager conducting litigation through insolvent company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">supreme court act 1867 (q), s. 58</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 28">rules of the supreme court of queensland o. 91, r.1.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS (NORTHERN TERRITORY) ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Establishment of Land Councils</title>
<title id="l2">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 43 Costs</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 203AD Recognition of representative bodies</title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 203BB Facilitation and assistance functions</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">LAND AND ENVIRONMENT COURT ACT 1979 </title>
<title id="l10">SUPREME COURT ACT 1970 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">defence forces</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">veterans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">pensions, allowances and other benefits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">date from which veterans' pension payable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">s177(2) veterans' entitlements act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">when application "made"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">whether s177 directory or mandatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">whether department of veterans affairs an agent of aat for purpose of receiving applications for review.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 642">whether available to establish fact upon which power to order payment depends.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l2">SAFETY, REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION ACT 1988 - SECT 67 Costs of proceedings before Administrative Appeals Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">SUPERANNUATION (RESOLUTION OF COMPLAINTS) ACT 1993 - SECT 46 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from determinations of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l4">SUPERANNUATION INDUSTRY (SUPERVISION) REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 6.22 Limitation on cashing of benefits in regulated superannuation funds in favour of persons other than members or their legal personal representatives</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</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>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 286 Obligation to keep financial records</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 440A Winding up company</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 35A Powers of Registrars</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">production and inspection-legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">for purposes of or in contemplation of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">whether an affidavit sworn pursuant to r213 is valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">where affidavit is sworn by a person without knowledge of facts giving rise to the claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">where documents are not described in a manner that enable an order for production to be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">whether the plaintiffs were in pursuit of illegal or fraudulent purposes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">where plaintiffs retained and communicated with private investigators -whether there is prime facie evidence that the allegation has some foundation in fact.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">general principles and maxims of equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">whether particulars had an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">where defendant's allege plaintiff's "hands unclean"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2003] QSC 247">whether application for striking-out is an abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 31">goldsmith v sandilands high court of australia</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">competitors in retail chocolate market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">use of colour purple</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">whether applicant has exclusive reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">use of colour in connection with trade names</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 446">marketing from different sorts of premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 363">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 363">opinion evidence as to likely consumer behaviour excluded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 363">not outside the knowledge and experience of a trier of fact</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 363">evidence of opinion as to ordinary human nature not admissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 363">alternatively evidence would be excluded on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">desk calendar refills</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">complaint that get-up of respondent's refills deceptively similar to that of applicant's</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">necessity for applicant to establish reputation and secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">functional feature of size and positioning of holes to fit desk stands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">words 'desk calendar refill' ordinary descriptive words. tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">desk calendar refills</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">complaint that get-up of respondent's refills deceptively similar to that of applicant's</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">necessity for applicant to establish reputation and secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">functional feature of size and positioning of holes to fit desk stands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1398">words 'desk calendar refill' ordinary descriptive words.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">tween girl magazines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">appellant published "total girl" magazine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">appellant published a one-off "girl power issue" and "girl power poster book"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">respondent commenced publication and distribution of "girl power" magazine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">whether applicant had acquired a substantial reputation in the cover and internal elements of "total girl"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">whether applicant had acquired a substantial reputation in the expression "girl power"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">similarities between cover and internal elements of the magazines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">allegation that these similarities create a misleading impression in the minds tweens and purchasers of the magazines that there is an association between the publishers of the two magazines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">discussion of classes of persons alleged to be misled or deceived</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">whether respondent was aware of, or intended to, copy the format used in "total girl"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">whether sufficient similarity exists between the two magazines to conclude that there has been any copying or misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">comparison with other tween girl magazines evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">rule in jones v dunkel [1959] hca 8 ; (1959) 101 clr 298</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">strengthening of adverse inferences by failure to call witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 625">whether any adverse inferences arise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 1099">ooooo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">s.52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">use of name, symbol and get-up resembling those of rival trader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether word "kettle" was descriptive or had obtained a secondary meaning distinctive of one product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether sufficient steps taken to distinguish rival's product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether licensing others to use "kettle" resulted in loss of any exclusive right to word</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether fraudulent intent to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">whether jones v. dunkel inference could be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1370">damages or account of profits.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">trade practices (comsumer protection)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">respondent (applicant at first instance) has established reputation in brand of liquid household disinfectant, pine-o-cleen</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">appellants (respondents at first instance) have an established reputation in a range of products known as glen 20 marketed as aerosolspray disinfectants, cleaners and deodorisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">appellants proposing to enter liquid disinfectant market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">appellants propose to market liquid disinfectant under the name glen 20 pine action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">comparison of get-ups of products of appellants and respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">whether members of public likely to be misled or deceived into thinking that appelants' products associated or connected with respondent or its product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1000">question of fact.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">trade practices act, section 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">use of name, symbol and get-up resembling those of rival trader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">names "the kettle chip" and "country kettle"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">test for comparison</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">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="cp12.6">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="cp12.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the respondent had taken sufficient steps to distinguish its product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether "kettle" is a descriptive word</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether in any case it has become distinctive of the applicant's product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">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="cp12.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the respondent's use of the word conveyed a falsehood</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">use of survey evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">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="cp12.14">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="cp12.15">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="cp12.16">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="cp12.17">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="cp12.18">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether the applicant by its own conduct had destroyed the distinctiveness of its name and device</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether a passing off action can be based upon a shared reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">whether a s. 52 action may be based on a shared reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">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="cp12.22">cited from="[1993] FCA 546">admissibility of survey evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.23">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="cp12.24">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="cp13.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">drawings made before commencement of copyright act 1968</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">whether copyright subsists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">whether drawings constituted designs "capable of being registered"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">copyright act 1968 , s 218</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">designs act 1906, ss 4, 17.  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">drawings of toy bricks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">modifications made after commencement of copyright act 1968 to reflect changes in manufacturing process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">whether modified drawings are original works in which copyright subsists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">whether defence available under s 77 of copyright act 1968 in respect of activities before and after copyright (amendment) act 1989</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">"overlap" between copyright and designs law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">"function" in designs law.  consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">toy bricks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">get up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">whether passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">whether sold as compatible and interchangeable with bricks of other manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">whether misrepresentation that bricks will work with the bricks of other manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">trade practices act 1974 , ss. 52 , 53 .  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">survey evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">admissibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">weight</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.22">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">attempted use to prove indirectly that for which testimonial evidence would be inadmissible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.23">cited from="[1992] FCA 624">federal court rules o 33 r 3.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">device</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">advertisement by moving picture on television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">whether use in course of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">substantial identity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1963] HCA 66">trade marks act 1955-1958 (cth), ss. 6, 58 (1), 62 (1).*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">s 52 of the trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">relevant date for the assessment of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">conduct not held to be misleading.  tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">establishing a reputation or secondary meaning in the product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">whether the promotion and supply of similar articles is likely to deceive potential purchasers to believe the rival trader's product was put out by or associated with the applicant or that the rival trader is itself associated with the applicant.  interpretation of settlement deeds and releases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 23">matters in contemplation of parties at the time release given.</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>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 23" id="cs0">As discussed in Natural Waters of Viti Ltd v Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Ltd [2007] FCA 200 ; (2007) 71 IPR 571 , a number of factors may be relevant to establishing sufficient reputation evidence. There Bennett J noted that (at [59]):

 The reputation which must be proved in a case such as this is that the get-up, packaging, shape, or trade dress relied upon is associated by consumers with the applicant's product. It takes a strong case to establish a reputation of this nature (Interlego at 386) as consumers will not necessarily associate a get-up with the applicant's product ( Collins Debden Pty Ltd v Cumberland Stationery Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2005] FCA 1398 at [33] to [34] per Lindgren J). The requisite reputation will more readily be found where the get-up is unique or striking rather than descriptive, mundane, merely functional, or in common use.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 2" id="cs1">As with passing off, whether or not impugned conduct is misleading or deceptive, or likely to mislead or deceive, is to be determined at the time the impugned conduct commenced, that is, in May 2009: see Taco Company of Australia Inc v Taco Bell Pty Ltd [1982] FCA 136 ; (1982) 42 ALR 177 (' Taco Bell ') at 195-196 and 203-204 per Deane and Fitzgerald JJ; Thai Wood Import  Export Co Ltd v Shuey Shing Pty Ltd (1989) 17 IPR 289 at 302 per Gummow J; Anheuser-Busch Inc v Budejovicky Budvar (2002) 56 IPR 182 at 237 per Allsop J; Dr Martens at 363 per Goldberg J; and Natural Waters of Viti Ltd v Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Ltd [2007] FCA 200 ; (2007) 71 IPR 571 (' Natural Waters ') at 585 per Bennett J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] ATMO 94" id="cs2">Although the article postdates the filing date of the application, it refers to a factory which is of sufficient long-standing to be able to claim to have closed for renovations. The water bottling industry in Fiji was also large enough to have an association and a spokesman. In Natural Waters of Viti Limited v Dayals ( Fiji ) Artesian Waters Limited [2007] FCA 200 , at paragraph 62, Bennett J summarises the history of the Dayals water-bottling:

 Mr Dayal began researching the possibilities of setting up a water bottling business in Fiji to cater for what he perceived to be a growing market demand for bottled water in 2001. Artesian Waters purchased land for commercial production bore-wells in February 2002. It obtained authorisation to proceed with construction in or about January 2004. As shown in the matter Natural Waters of Viti Limited v Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Limited [2007] FCA 200 , there is at least one other trader in Fiji who bottles water for export to Australia. And, according to an article on Radio New Zealand on 7 July 2008:

 The water bottling industry is outraged at the sealing off of a member's plant by the Fiji Islands and Revenue Customs Authority or FIRCA. Fiji Times online says three FIRCA officers sealed off the bottling area at Mineral Waters of Fiji, which bottles Viti Blu, on Johnson Road, in Lautoka, yesterday morning. Concerning the history of the trade mark on the Australian market, it is convenient to quote Bennett J in Natural Waters of Viti Ltd [1] v Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Ltd [2007] FCA 200 ; (2007) 71 IPR 571 at paragraph 7 and subsequently at paragraph 50:

 Fiji Water is the first bottled water product to originate from Fiji. From about mid 2003 to mid 2006, Fiji Water was bottled and distributed in Australia by Natural Waters in a get-up (the 2003 get-up) which included the name "Fiji Natural Spring Water". The 2003 get-up

 Since October 2005, Natural Waters has bottled and distributed Fiji Water in Australia in a get-up (the 2005 get-up) which includes the name "Fiji Natural Artesian Water".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 406" id="cs3">78 The evidence necessary or sufficient to establish reputation to found a case for passing off and contravention of the TPA will depend upon various factors (see eg Natural Waters of Viti Limited v Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Limited [2007] FCA 200 ; (2007) 71 IPR 571 at [58] - [59] ). Reputation may be inferred from a high volume of sales and extensive advertising, without any other direct evidence (see in a different context, Kenny J in McCormick  Company Inc v McCormick [2000] FCA 1335 ; (2000) 51 IPR 102 at [86] - [88]. In this proceeding, there are no sales or direct advertising or promotion of Hansen's product in Australia. Rather, the evidence relied upon is that of exposure to persons in Australia through the marketing strategy adopted by Hansen to reach its target demographic primarily in other countries. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 555" id="cs4">1 In Natural Waters of Viti Limited v Dayals (Fiji) Artesian Waters Limited [2007] FCA 200 I ordered that the application be dismissed. The parties have now filed submissions on costs. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l2">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 42 Reference of certain questions to Products Safety Committee</title>
<title id="l3">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 44 Method of notifying safety warning notices</title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 52 Object of Division</title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 53 Declaration of industry code of conduct in relation to motor vehicle insurers and repairers</title>
</legistitles>
</case>