Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 151">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 151">letter notifying appellant of visa cancellation sent to "address for correspondence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 151">appellant's application for review was lodged out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 151">meaning in reg 2.55(3)(c) migration regulations 1994 (cth) of "post box address"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 151">whether failed delivery of email notification created second timetable for review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1184">1. paragraph 1, third line</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1184">"the tribunal had affirmed a decision of a delegate ..." should be amended to read "the tribunal found that it had no jurisdiction to review the decision of a delegate ...".  2. paragraph 26, line 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1184">"at hearing of the appeal" should read "at the hearing of the appeal ...". 3. paragraph 29, line 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1184">(see cb 44) should read (see ab 77).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">permanent and temporary partner visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">bigamy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">de facto spouse relationship. administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">application to file appeal out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">earlier dismissal of proceeding as incompetent is an interlocutory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">late service of submissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">application for adjournment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">no denial of procedural fairness in short adjournment only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 38">international law obligations not affecting statutory time limits.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1427">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1427">position of an applicant for a protection visa who doesn't personally receive notice of the minister's delegate's decision which was duly posted to him in an envelope which was received at his nominated postal address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 181">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 181">cancellation of transitional (permanent) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 181">character test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 181">criminal history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 181">whether the minister has the power to revoke the decision to cancel a visa pursuant to s 501(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) and whether there is an intention to exclude the operation of s 33(1) acts interpretation act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">appeal period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification of the decision was in the "prescribed way" under migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification by pre-paid post means the person is taken to have received the document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">business skills (residence) (class bh) visa, subclass 840 (business owner)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">appeal from a refusal of the migration review tribunal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">whether notification of minister's decision to refuse visa application is effective where written notification is sent by prepaid post to an address the minister knows will result in the notification being returned undelivered, and which was so returned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">the effect of subss 494b(4) and 494c(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">whether subs 494c(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth) evidences a contrary intention to the second limb of s 29 of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">rescission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">right to rescind conferred by contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">whether to determine contract or to treat it as subsisting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">unequivocal conduct with knowledge of facts giving right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">exercise of right to rescind precluded.  vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">contract of sale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">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="cp13.9">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">statement that property affected as shown in annexed certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">no certificate annexed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">election to determine contract or to treat contract as subsisting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">unequivocal conduct with knowledge of facts giving right to rescind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">imputation to clients of solicitor's knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1974] HCA 40">exercise of right to rescind precluded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">application for judicial review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">tribunal held application out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">whether there was a second notification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">whether there can be two notifications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">consideration of allegedly conflicting full federal court decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">alleged estoppel against minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 223">whether estoppel can apply.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">application dismissed.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">complaint concerning standard of interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">solicitor for applicant seeking to have applicant further examined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">application to re-open dismissed.  the applicant in these proceedings is not to be identified pursuant to s.91x of the migration act 1958 (cth) and was given the pseudonym "szopd".  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.45 , 65 , 66 , 91x , 412(1)(b), 417, 494a-494d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">visa cancellation by minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">appellants' authorised recipient notified of decision by registered mail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">further notifications to authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">whether second notification gives rise to new period in which review application can be commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">whether the first notification was sent to "the last business address" for the purposes of s 494b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">whether s 494c cures a defective notification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">whether the second notification "frustrated or negated" the appellants' entitlement to apply for review.  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 27">whether estoppel arises from second notification which prevents minister from asserting that review application commenced out of time.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 12">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 12">review of decision of the migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 12">application to the tribunal was made out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 12">application to the court did not contain a lawyer's certification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 12">application for judicial review was made out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 12">whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 12">application dismissed as not competent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 952">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 952">change of address not notified to the minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 952">whether applicant was properly notified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 952">whether minister has duty to search for a new address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 952">failure to seek review within prescribed period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 952">no power to extend period.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">review of a decision of the migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">whether the tribunal was wrong to find that it did not have jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision because the application for review was made out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">whether the applicant was properly notified of the delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">question of when time limits start from proper notification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">whether the tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 931">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 931">application for extension of time to appeal from decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 931">whether applicant had reasonable explanation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 931">whether draft application for judicial review has any, or any reasonable, prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 931">whether in the interests of justice to extend time.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">rrt decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">application to tribunal after expiry of time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">notification of delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">absence of some addresses of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">notification was not invalid in circumstances of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">no grounds for relief shown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 555">application for judicial review dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">automatic cancellation of visa by operation of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">appellant sought revocation of cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">appellant alleged email from delegate attaching decision not to revoke visa never received</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">migration act 1958 (cth) and migration regulations 1994 (cth) deeming provisions for receipt of a document considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">evidence in court below to establish email to appellant sent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">appellant deemed to have received the email at the end of the day on which it was sent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 461">deeming provisions for receipt of documents achieve administrative certainty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">visa cancellation by minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">applicant's authorised recipient validly notified of decision by registered mail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">further notification to authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">whether second notification gives rise to new period in which review application can be commenced.  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">applicant's authorised recipient validly notified of decision by registered mail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">further notification to authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 305">whether estoppel arises from second notification which prevents minister from asserting that review application commenced out of time.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.0">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.1">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">extension of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.2">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">solicitors to provide clear information about the steps that are required to be taken by the plaintiff to initiate proceedings.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.3">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">extension of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.4">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">significant prejudice to proposed defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.5">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">'all circumstances of the case'  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.6">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">extension of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.7">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">"duration of disability"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.8">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">whether legal or physical disability.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.9">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">extension of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.10">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">significant prejudice to proposed defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.11">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">delay in seeking legal advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.12">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">substantial passing of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.13">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">plaintiff disability of short duration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.14">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">promptness of action.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.15">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">extension of limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp30.16">citing from="[2010] ACTSC 21">possibility of action against plaintiff solicitor responsible for delays.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">application to review decision of delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">student (temporary) (class tu) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">request for information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">no information provided in prescribed time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp31.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">no power to extend time.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">mrt jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">time limit running from receipt of email notification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">deeming provision in relation to time of receipt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">'transmitting the document' does not require actual receipt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">receipt at email</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">provider's server or at addressee's terminal not necessarily required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">applicant failed to apply to tribunal within 7 days after deemed receipt of emailed notification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp32.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1206">application for mandamus refused.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 223" id="cs0">Notwithstanding the helpful and detailed submissions made by both advocates, in reality consideration of this question boils down to what is the state of the authorities arising out of three decisions. The relevant portion of the Tribunal's decision is at paragraph 22 (CB82): "The Tribunal finds that the applicant was properly notified of the delegate's decision and is taken to have been notified on 6 April 2010. The judgments in Zhang v MIAC [2007] FCAFC 151 and MIAC v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 confirm that once a delegate's decision has been correctly notified, the time to make a valid review application will not start again even if the applicant is given the primary decision again. Therefore, the prescribed period of 21 days within which the application for review could be lodged ended on 27 April 2010. The application for review was not received by the Tribunal until 21 June 2010, after the prescribed period had expired. "  The third case to which counsel referred me was that of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Manaf [2009] FCA 963 , a decision of Sundberg J given on 31 August 2009. The relevant facts were that: In February 2006 the respondent lodged an application for a further business visa in which he provided an address to which correspondence should be sent (the Bridgewater Way address). On 7 August 2007, the delegate refused to grant the visa and later on the same day sent a letter by registered post to the Bridgewater Way address enclosing a copy of the decision.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 178" id="cs1">She is thus taken to have received the document at that time. The time within which to apply to the tribunal would run from that date. Because of this [2009] FCA 963 ; 111 ALD 437 at 444 change in the law, the respondent says that the issues raised are no longer matters of public importance, and I should not write a judgment about them because "Parliament has moved on". [33] The explanatory memorandum to the Bill which became the Amending Act explains that the notification provisions in the Act and regulations are highly prescriptive and create fertile ground for the courts to find defects in notifications. Technical errors can be relied on by those seeking to delay the resolution of their cases despite no apparent prejudice flowing from the defect. 25. On the basis of the information relating to notification of review rights given in the first notification letter, the Tribunal finds that the letter was valid, and that the applicant was properly notified of the delegate's decision, and is taken to have been notified on 14 December 2001. Once a delegate's decision has been correctly notified, the time to make a valid review application does not start again, even if the applicant is given the primary decision again: MIAC v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963. Therefore, the prescribed period of 28 days within which the application for review could be lodged entered on 11 January 2002. Grounds of review
  Mr Markus submits that the applicant's submissions incorrectly address the Federal Court authority directly on point referred to in the Tribunal decision: Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 ; (2009) 111 ALD 437 per Sundberg J. In this the decision mentioned above, His Honour accepted the Minister's submissions to the effect that in circumstances where the first notification letter is defective, a subsequent notification of the decision does not have any legal effect. Once the prescribed period within which a valid application has to be made has expired, the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction to review the decision in question.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 27" id="cs2">Jarrett FM then addressed an argument that the second notification, sent by the department on 17 March 2009, effectively "re-set" the timeframe in which a review application could be made. In this regard, his Honour discussed the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in H v MIMA (2002) 118 FCR 153 and Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 151. Jarrett FM referred to, and followed, the more recent decision of Sundberg J in Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963. Jarrett FM said at [58] and [61]:

 In Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 Sundberg J (sitting as the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia) dealt with an application to extend time within which to commence an appeal and the appeal itself. His Honour determined during the course of his reasons that:

 Consistent with previous authority, s.494C of the Act does not create a rebuttable presumption of fact as to receipt of a notification sent using a method prescribed by s.494B of the Act. In this regard, his Honour discussed the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in H v MIMA (2002) 118 FCR 153 and Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 151. Jarrett FM referred to, and followed, the more recent decision of Sundberg J in Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963. Jarrett FM said at [58] and [61]:

 In Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 Sundberg J (sitting as the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia) dealt with an application to extend time within which to commence an appeal and the appeal itself. His Honour determined during the course of his reasons that:

 Consistent with previous authority, s.494C of the Act does not create a rebuttable presumption of fact as to receipt of a notification sent using a method prescribed by s.494B of the Act. The first notification was sent using a method prescribed by s.494B of the Act and the visa applicant was taken to have received the document in accordance with s.494C.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] MRTA 233" id="cs3">The decisions in Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 151 ( Zhang ) and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 ( Abdul Manaf ) confirm that once the Minister's decision has been correctly notified in accordance with one of the methods specified in the Act and Regulations, the time for applying for review will not start running again if the Minister subsequently purports to re-notify the applicant, or otherwise provides the applicant with a copy of the decision. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 12" id="cs4">But as Mr Markus submits, even if it could be so construed this would not assist the applicant. I note what Sundberg J relevantly said in Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 (" Abdul Manaf "), a case which involved a "third letter" in circumstances involving notification of a delegate's decision where the first letter was found to be a valid notification, a second letter was found to amount to a re-notification, and in fact a third letter was sent (see at [6] to [8]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 952" id="cs5">

 56. But the authorities dealing with deeming provisions in relation to non-electronic communications make it clear that the effect of those provisions is not to create a rebuttable presumption of fact. They are not to be read as if they were subject to a proviso that the person is not taken to have received the document if the contrary is proved : Xie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 172 ("Xie") at [13] --- [14] per Spender, Kiefel and Dowsett JJ; see also the review of the authorities by Sundberg J in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 at [21] --- [24]; and see Tay v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 23 at [16] --- [19] per Dowsett, Stone and Bennett JJ (emphasis added). 57. The same reasoning applies to the statutory deeming provision relating to electronic communications in reg 2.55(8).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 957" id="cs6">Such an argument does not succeed. In Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 Sundberg J was faced with circumstances relevantly similar to those in the current case. An applicant applied for a visa and gave an address for service. A decision was made refusing the application. Notification was sent to the address for service. About 2 weeks later the applicant advised the Minister's department of a change of address. A copy of the notification was sent in response, but not to the address secondly notified. The first letter was returned to the department "unopened". The second marked: "no such address" ([2] to [4]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 931" id="cs7">In circumstances where I am satisfied that the letter dated 21 September 2009 was sent in accordance with the statutory regime and was therefore effective, time ran against the Applicant from that date Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdoul Manaf [2009] FCA 963. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] MRTA 2458" id="cs8">The Tribunal finds that the applicant was properly notified of the delegate's decision and is taken to have been notified on 13 May 2010. The judgments in Zhang v MIAC [2007] FCAFC 151 and MIAC v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 confirm that once a delegate's decision has been correctly notified, the time to make a valid review application will not start again even if the applicant is given the primary decision again. Therefore, the prescribed period of 21 days within which the application for review could be lodged ended on 3 June 2010. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] RRTA 908" id="cs9">On the basis of the information relating to notification of review rights given in the first notification letter, the Tribunal finds that the letter was valid, and that the applicant was properly notified of the delegate's decision, and is taken to have been notified [in] July 2006. Once a delegate's decision has been correctly notified, the time to make a valid review application does not start again, even if the applicant is given the primary decision again: MIAC v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963. Therefore, the prescribed period of 28 days within which the application for review could be lodged ended [on a date in] July 2006. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] MRTA 2214" id="cs10">The time for lodging an application for review begins when the applicant is taken to have been first validly notified of the decision, in this case by email taken to have been received on 27 May 2010, regardless of whether there is any subsequent notification ( MIAC v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 (Sundberg J, 31 August 2009)). The notification of 27 May 2010 sent by email to the applicant's authorised representative was a valid notification which clearly indicated that the applicant had 21 days from the date of that letter in which to lodge an application for review. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] MRTA 1954" id="cs11">Although the applicant appears to have received a copy of the notification when he attended the Department's office on 23 March 2010, as the Tribunal has found that the notification posted to him by letter dated 26 November 2009 was valid notification, the copy that he subsequently received will not recommence his prescribed period for lodging a review application: MIAC v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963  Zhang v MIAC [2007] FCAFC 151 ; (2007) 161 FCR 419. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 555" id="cs12">It is also well established that a sufficiently posted notification of a delegate's decision is conclusively deemed to have been received for the purposes of the time limit even if, in fact, it was not received and the letter was returned to the sender (see Murphy v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 657 ; [2004] FCA 657 ; (2004) 135 FCR 550 at 564, also SZBMF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1427 ; (2005) 147 FCR 485 , Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 , and Tay v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 23 ; (2010) 183 FCR 163). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 461" id="cs13">But the authorities dealing with deeming provisions in relation to non-electronic communications make it clear that the effect of those provisions is not to create a rebuttable presumption of fact. They are not to be read as if they were subject to a proviso that the person is not taken to have received the document if the contrary is proved: Xie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 172 (" Xie ") at [13] --- [14] per Spender, Kiefel and Dowsett JJ; see also the review of the authorities by Sundberg J in Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 at [21] --- [24]; and see Tay v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] FCAFC 23 at [16] --- [19] per Dowsett, Stone and Bennett JJ. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 305" id="cs14">His Honour's decision was set aside on appeal. In Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 Sundberg J (sitting as the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia) dealt with an application to extend time within which to commence an appeal and the appeal itself. His Honour determined during the course of his reasons that: Consistent with previous authority, s.494C of the Act does not create a rebuttable presumption of fact as to receipt of a notification sent using a method prescribed by s. 494B of the Act. The first notification was sent using a method prescribed by s.494B of the Act and the visa applicant was taken to have received the document in accordance with s.494C. The defect (ie., sending the letter to the wrong address) in the second notification letter could not affect the validity of a notification that had already been "taken" or "deemed" to have occurred prior to the second notification letter being sent. Section 347(1) of the Act requires an application for review to be made in the approved form and be given to the Tribunal within the prescribed period (21 days after the notification of the decision by the first notification letter). The application was not made within the prescribed period, and accordingly was not competent. No subsequent letter could confer on the Tribunal jurisdiction it did not have. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] MRTA 1101" id="cs15">The decisions in Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 151 ( Zhang ) and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 ( Abdul Manaf ) confirm that once the Minister's decision has been correctly notified in accordance with one of the methods specified in the Act and Regulations, the time for applying for review will not start running again if the Minister subsequently purports to re-notify the applicant, or otherwise provides the applicant with a copy of the decision. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] ACTSC 21" id="cs16">53. In Duff v Freijah [1982] FCA 159 ; (1982) 62 FLR 280 , Northrop J said (at 287) that it was "well-established that delays by a solicitor are visited upon the client when those delays are relevant to the limitation periods". This does not seem to have been universally accepted: see Lucic v Nolan (1982) 45 ALR 411 (at 417). This approach was discarded in Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 which embraced the views of the English courts, summed up in the comment of Lord Denning MR in Salter Rex  Co v Ghosh [1971] 2 QB 597 (at 601), "[w]e never like a litigant to suffer by the mistake of his lawyers". See also Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Manaf [2009] FCA 963 ; (2009) 111 ALD 437 (at 440[14]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 85" id="cs17">There are a number of other decisions that have applied that interpretation of s.494C(4): SZBMF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1427 ; [2005] FCA 1427 ; (2005) 147 FCR 485 (S.494C(4) ; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Manaf [2009] FCA 963 ; Swee Yen Tay v Migration Review Tribunal [2009] FCA 515 ; Swee Yen Tay v Migration Review Tribunal (No 2) [2009] FCA 591 ; Cao v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 586.  On 4 May, 2009 the Minister's delegate sent a copy of the invitation sent earlier to Ms Kaur's authorised agent. That did not operate as a re-notification of the original invitation and so recommence the relevant time period: Zhang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 151 ; [2007] FCAFC 151 ; (2007) 161 FCR 419 and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Manaf [2009] FCA 963. Ground 2
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1206" id="cs18">In relation to posted documents, sub-regulation (7) is in terms which have a long history of judicial consideration. It provides that a person "is taken to have received the document ... 7 working days ... after the date of the document" if it was posted for delivery in Australia. There are many cases which have noted that such a receipt is conclusively deemed to have occurred, even if actual receipt is proved not to have occurred for whatever reason (for example, see Murphy v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 657 ; (2004) 135 FCR 550 at [69] , Minister for Immigration  Citizenship v Abdul Manaf [2009] FCA 963 citing Xie v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 172 at [13] - [14], and SZBMF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1427 ; (2005) 147 FCR 485). Such provisions have the evident general purpose "to eliminate uncertainty as to whether a document has been given to an applicant" (cf. Le v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCAFC 20 ; (2007) 157 FCR 321 at [25] ). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 33 Exercise of powers and duties</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 33 Special purpose visas</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 66 Notification of decision</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 347 Application for review by Migration Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494B Methods by which Minister gives documents to a person</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494C When a person is taken to have received a document from the Minister</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 - REG 2.16 Notification of decision on visa application</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION AMENDMENT (NOTIFICATION REVIEW) ACT 2008 (NO. 112, 2008) </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">application to strike out amended statement of claim pursuant to federal court rules , o 11 r 16</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">whether amended statement of claim discloses reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">whether fails to plead material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">whether pleading embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">whether particulars inadequate. trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1458">whether allegations appropriately pleaded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">motion for striking out statement of claim under o 11 r 16 of federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">statement of claim must plead material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">while a conclusion may itself constitute a material fact, a conclusion without exposure of the primary facts on which it is based is likely to render the pleading objectionable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">facts pleaded at unacceptable level of generality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">statement of claim struck out with leave to replead trade and commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">secondary boycotts for the purpose of causing substantial loss or damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">boycotts affecting trade or commerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">allegation of conduct in concert by several respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">concerted conduct must actually hinder or prevent supply or acquisition of goods rather than create the mere possibility that hindrance or prevention might occur</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">pleading must go beyond repeating the language of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) to reveal the facts which bring a claim within that language</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">accessorial liability does not attract the extraterritorial application of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">tort of conspiracy requires that conspirators have as their dominant purpose the intent of injuring the claimants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">the object or objects of the conspiracy should be clearly identified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 290">to make out the tort of intimidation there must be found an intention to harm the claimant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">boral besser masonry limited (now boral masonry ltd) v australian competition and consumer commission  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">predatory pricing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">market definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">concrete masonry products market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">close substitutability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">whether appellant had substantial degree of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">recoupment of losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">analysis of market structure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">market share</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">barriers to entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">whether barriers to entry created by practices and policies of incumbent firms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">pricing behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">increase in supply capacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">whether taking advantage of a substantial degree of market power for a proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">legislative purpose of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">relevance of market economic conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">relevance of purpose of damaging a competitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 46(1) , (3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">foreign currency loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">adequacy of advice given by bank to customer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">basis of liability under s.52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">reliance by customer on bank's advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">when cause of action accrued under s.82.  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">banker and customer relationship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">foreign currency loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">amount and quality of advice to be given by bank</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">whether breach of terms of contract by bank.  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">foreign currency loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">basis of duty of care owed by bank to customer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">content of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">adequacy of advice given by bank to customer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">customers' reliance on bank's advice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">breach of duty of care.  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">mitigation of loss by use of forward exchange contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1991] FCA 557">appropriate method of calculating loss.  trade practices act 1974 ss.52 , 82 , 87 ; sub-ss.82(2), 87(1a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">monopolization</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">substantial control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">substantial degree of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">refusal to supply</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">market definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">taking advantage of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">whether hostile intent required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1989] HCA 6">trade practices act 1974 (cth).s.46(1)(b),(c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">whether hearing "discontinued"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">application for certificate.  federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 , s. 10(3).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">hearing fixed to commence on a particular date but no judge available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">whether hearing discontinued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 (cth), s 10(3)(a). a hearing which has been fixed to commence on a particular date but which does not do so because no judge of the court is available to hear it, has been "discontinued" within the meaning of s 10(3)(a) of the federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 (cth).  hearing  sydney, 1985, june 24-27. 27:6:1985</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">particulars of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">loss of earning capacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">particulars estimating loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">evidence of loss exceeding estimate admitted at trial without objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">verdict based on loss exceeding estimation in particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">plaintiff not bound by particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">rules of the supreme court (vict.), o. 19, r. 5a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">arrangement or understanding affecting competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">meaning of arrangement or understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">relevant market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">meaning of competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">trade practices act 1974 (cth.), ss. 45 , 45a.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">proceedings by writ of summons under s. 76</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">circumstantial evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">admissibility of answers to s. 155 notices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">admissions of company officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">trade practices act 1974 (cth.), ss. 76 , 84 (2), 155 . the defendants carried on business at five hotels in the metropolitan area of adelaide selling packaged beer. the plaintiff commenced proceedings by writ of summons against the defendants claiming pecuniary penalties pursuant to s. 76 of the trade practices act 1974 , and injunctions pursuant to s. 80 of the act. the claim alleged breaches of s. 45 of the act in that the defendants had made an arrangement or arrived at an understanding which had the purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition and that they gave effect to that understanding. the essence of the arrangement or understanding as alleged was that the hotels operated by the defendants would on or about 5th december, 1977, fix the allowance offered to the public on each purchase of twelve 740</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1979] FCA 51">millilitre bottles of beer at two such bottles of beer. it was common ground that in respect of the defendants this amounted to a reduction in allowance for each purchase of twelve bottles from three bottles to two bottles for each such purchase.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">limitation act 1935 (wa) s 47a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">whether appropriate to grant leave to file proposed proceeding under s 47a(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">delay of nearly three years between applicants' solicitor's realization that applicants had potential claim against respondents and filing of application seeking leave not occasioned by mistake or reasonable cause where delay attributed to solicitor's unawareness of s 47a and its potential application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">solicitor's ignorance of statute's existence not reasonable cause or "mistake" in the relevant sense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">existence of pre-application discovery proceeding insufficient explanation for delay under the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">absence of material prejudice to potential respondents not established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">weakness of proposed causes of action weighed in favour of denying leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">leave not appropriate  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 404">declaratory relief inappropriate in the circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 361">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 361">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 361">dismissal of proceeding  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 361">misfeasance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 361">elements of the tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 361">need for specific pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 361">adequacy of pleadings</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 404" id="cs0">Nonetheless, while I accept in light of Repacholi that a claim in negligence against CASA might well be properly pleaded in the appropriate circumstances, I have substantial doubts, based on the available material, about the viability of a negligence claim in the applicants' particular circumstances. The absence of material facts in the pleading, which I discuss below in connection with the misfeasance claims, means that the precise content of the duty allegedly owed to the applicants remains undeveloped. As pleaded, the duty is currently formulated at an unsatisfactory level of generality: see Pharam-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Australia (No 3) [2010] FCA 361 at [99] quoting Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [2005] FCA 290 at [24] and Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2008] FCA 1623 at [2] . In this regard, I note that the reasons in Repacholi indicate that in that case there was at least some attempt to give content to the alleged duty by reference to an obligation to collect information regarding takeoff procedures: see Repacholi at 108 [57]. This lack of specificity indicates that, in truth, in the applicants' case, the negligence claim against CASA is very largely speculative. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 361" id="cs1">Emphasis is placed by Senior Counsel on behalf of the Applicant on the statement by French J in Charlie Carter that it " does not necessarily follow that a conclusion may not constitute a material fact ". With reference to this statement, Hely J in Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [2005] FCA 290 observed:

 [24] On the other hand, French J has expressed the view that a conclusion may constitute a material fact: Charlie Carter Pty Ltd v The Shop, Distributive  Allied Employees' Assn of Western Australia (1987) 13 FCR 413 ; Kernel Holdings Pty Ltd v Rothmans of Pall Mall (Aust) Pty Ltd WAG 83 of 1991, 3 September 1991 (unreported). In his Honour's view, the real issue in a case where an objection is raised that a conclusion only is pleaded is whether the facts are pleaded at too great a level of generality to allow the pleading to serve its intended purpose. Drummond J agreed with that approach in State of Queensland v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 499. ...

Reference may also be made to the like comment of Greenwood J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2008] FCA 1623 at [2] that " [n]ot all conclusionary pleadings will be struck out. Whether a pleading ought to be struck out will depend upon whether the facts have been pleaded at too great a level of generality or at too high a level of abstraction ". </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] WASCA 22">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] WASCA 22">appeal against conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] WASCA 22">migration offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] WASCA 22">defence of sudden or extraordinary emergency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] WASCA 22">whether sufficient direction as to nature of defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">fisheries management act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">forfeiture of vessel under s 106a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">whether forfeiture effective on commission of offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">seizure of vessel on the high seas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">whether such seizure lawful under the fisheries act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">whether such seizure involved 'repossession'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 262">constitutional validity of forfeiture and seizure provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">foreign vessels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">offences against fisheries act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">unauthorised fishing in the australian fishing zone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">unauthorised presence in australian fishing zone with fishing equipment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">automatic forfeiture to commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">whether title transferred immediately</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">whether title transferred upon condemnation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">whether court empowered to direct recovery of vessel notwithstanding forfeiture in case of unlawful boarding and seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">whether hot pursuit power affected by international convention constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">fisheries power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">automatic forfeiture of fishing boats</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">characterisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">validity of forfeiture provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">automatic forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">whether inconsistent with judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 229">whether involving acquisition on other than just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">acquisition on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">commonwealth employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">injured worker entitled to compensation and tight of action for damages at common law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">statutory removal of right of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">whether acquisition of property other than on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xxxi)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 6">commonwealth employees' rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth), s. 44.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">acquisition on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">sales tax imposed on swimming pools</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">contravention of requirement that laws imposing taxation deal only with imposition of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">act providing for refund of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">refund to builder where tax not passed on to owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">refund to owner where tax passed on</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">whether law with respect to taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">whether acquisition of builder's property otherwise than on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(ii) , (xxxi), (xxxix), 61</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1994] HCA 9">swimming pools tax refund act 1992 (cth), s. 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">fisheries -acquisition on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">offence to use unlicensed boat within designated waters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">statute authorizing order for forfeiture of boat upon conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">owner without knowledge of offence -whether law with respect to fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">whether acquisition of property otherwise than on just terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(x) , (xxx)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 10">fisheries management act 1991 (cth), ss. 100 , 106 (1)(a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">review of a decision of an officer of customs to seize certain items of mining equipment on the ground that he believed on reasonable grounds that they were forfeited goods.  decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">meaning of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">in a consideration of the provisions of the customs act 1901 (cth) the relevant decision is the act of seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">not the enquiries and internal determinations and conclusions that precede the act of seizure.  seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">what amounts to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">under the customs act 1901 (cth) an act of seizure is discretionary and requires the making of a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">such a decision is reviewable under the provisions of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth).  forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">the concept of forfeiture in the customs act 1901 (cth) does not evolve out of any administrative decision to which the provisions of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) might attach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">it arises by force of the statute upon the happening of certain prior events</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">"forfeited" is to be contrasted with "liable to be forfeited"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">as forfeiture occurs by force of law, title vests in the crown as from the date of the event or omission which gave rise to the forfeiture.  trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">conduct of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 467">a trial judge is not limited to or constrained by the arguments and submissions that have been advanced in the interest of a particular litigant when making findings of fact that are based on the evidence adduced during the course of the trial.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">fisheries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">use of unlicensed boat within designated waters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">conviction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">statute authorizing order for forfeiture of any boat used in commission of offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">whether boat not the property of person committing offence may be forfeit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 63">fisheries act 1952-1970 (cth), s. 13aa.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">delivery, making or production of entry etc. false or wilfully misleading in any particular</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">form of notice of seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">form of application for import licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">customs act 1901-1954 (cth), ss. 205, 229 (i)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 52">customs regulations, reg. 60.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">constitutional law (cth.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">forfeiture of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">seizure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">condemnation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51 (i.), (ii.), (xxxi.), (xxxix.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">customs act 1901-1950, (no. 6 of 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">no. 56 of 1950), ss. 203, 229, 262.  customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">seizure of goods in hands of bona-fide purchaser for value</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">customs act 1901-1950 (no. 6 of 1901</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1952] HCA 30">no. 56 of 1950).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">compulsory acquisition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">appellant's ship entered australia's territorial sea carrying many persons not holding any australian visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">direction signed under s 185b(4) of the customs act 1901 (cth) directing an officer to destroy the ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">ship destroyed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">whether destruction of vessel pursuant to s 185b(4) of customs act 1901 (cth) an acquisition of property under s 51(xxxi) of the constitution entitling appellant to compensation under s 4ab of the customs act  held: destruction of vessel pursuant to s 185b(4) of customs act not an acquisition under s 51(xxxi) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">appellant not entitled to rely on s 4ab of the customs act  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">whether breach of s 42(1) is a "contravention" of the migration act 1958 (cth) giving rise to the forfeiture provisions in s 261a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">meaning of "contravention" under s 261a of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">principles of construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">whether ship automatically forfeited by force of s 261a if ship used in breach of s 42(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">use of headings of divisions and sections held: "contravention of this act" in s 261a means "offence against" the act so as to cause property used in people smuggling to be forfeited</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">use of property in breach of s 42(1) not an offence and not a contravention of migration act within meaning of s 261a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">no forfeiture of vessel by operation of s 261a  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">construction of s 10.3 of the criminal code 1995 (cth) schedule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">whether ss 229(1) , 232 (1), 232a or 233(1)(a) of the migration act 1958 (cth) contravened if basis of verdict of not guilty was that defence under s 10.3 of the code was established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">conduct element of offence proved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">meaning of "not criminally responsible for an offence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.20">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">whether contravention could occur without a finding of fault elements required to establish criminal responsibility or guilt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.21">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">whether proof of the physical or conduct element in each offence established a contravention of a norm of behaviour established by the act despite verdict of not guilty held: verdict of not guilty determined that appellant's conduct was not criminal and thus he had not contravened the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.22">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 80">questions of whether conduct of respondent lawful pursuant to customs act 1901 (cth) and of assessment of damages, if any, remitted to primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 921">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 921">application for security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 921">principles to be applied in exercise of discretion as to whether to grant an order for security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 921">difference in principle in relation to ordering of security for costs in a first instance matter and at an appellate level</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 921">where an order for security for costs would stultify the appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 921">whether the public interest associated with the appeal outweighs the appellant's impecuniosity so not to warrant an order for security for costs in the respondent's favour.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">automatic forfeiture of fishing vessel engaged in transportation of unauthorised persons to australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">meaning of word 'contravention'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">whether contravention of s 261a of migration act 1958 (cth) requires conviction of offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">whether contravention of s 261a limited to contravention of provisions within migration act creating offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">whether offence section contravened if a defence were available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">whether s 42 of the migration act contravened   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">grounds under which court can depart from a previous judgment    interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">reference to headings to divisions in aid of interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">use of extrinsic material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 474">ss 13 , 15ab acts interpretation act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">therapeutic goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">civil penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">relevant matters to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">agreement as to facts and penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">need to ensure a penalty is " appropriate "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">scrutiny given to agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1545">declaratory relief</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 80" id="cs0">130 Mr Van Tol Tran brought a proceeding in this Court against the Commonwealth. After a trial, the primary judge made the following order and declaration, relevantly:
 The Court orders that: 1. The application be dismissed. The Court declares that:

 1. Title in the ship with the markings Hao Kiet BL91693TS passed to the Commonwealth on and from 1 July 2003 and all rights and title to that ship were vested in the Commonwealth on and from 1 July 1993.

The primary judge's reasons are set out in Tran v The Commonwealth [2008] FCA 901 ("Tran No 1") and Tran v The Commonwealth [2009] FCA 474 ("Tran No 2").</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 921" id="cs1">Cowdroy J dismissed Mr Tran's claim for compensation at first instance ( Tran v The Commonwealth (2008) 103 ALD 290 ; [2008] FCA 901 ( Tran No 1 ); Tran v The Commonwealth (2009) 108 ALD 531 ; [2009] FCA 474 ( Tran No 2 )). The principal basis upon which his Honour did so in Tran No 2 turned on the construction of ss 261A and 42 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Section 261A(1)(a) of the Migration Act provides for forfeiture to the Commonwealth of a vessel used or involved in a contravention of the Act (where the contravention occurred in Australia), if the contravention involved: (i) the bringing or coming to Australia of one or more persons who were, or upon entry into Australia became, unlawful non-citizens; or (ii) the entry or proposed entry into Australia of one or more such persons. Section 42(1) provides that a non-citizen must not travel to Australia without a visa that is in effect. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 474" id="cs2">On 16 June 2008 the Court delivered its findings in respect of specific questions which were asked of it pursuant to O 29 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules (Cth): see Tran v The Commonwealth [2008] FCA 901 ; (2008) 103 ALD 290 (' Tran No. 1 '). Since the facts and legislation are set out in that decision, the present decision should be read in conjunction with Tran No. 1 . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1545" id="cs3">61 The conferral of a discretion by s 54(3) stands in contrast to other statutory regimes which more simply provide that identified categories of goods " shall be forfeited to the Crown ": eg, Customs Act 1901 (Cth), s 229(1) ; Excise Act 1901 (Cth), s 116(1). Section 229, it has been said, " gives rise to an immediate forfeiture of affected goods, without the need for any specific act on the part of Customs or the courts ": Pellegrino v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2008] NSWCCA 17 at [63] , [2008] NSWCCA 17 ; 243 ALR 556 at 571 per Basten JA (Hidden and Barr JJ agreeing). See also: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 85. Some provisions, such as s 261A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), provide that goods " are forfeited to the Commonwealth ". That section is contained within Part 2 Division 13A to the 1958 Act, a Division headed " Automatic forfeiture of things used in certain offences ". Forfeiture effected by s 261A nevertheless remains " contestable ": Tran v Commonwealth [2008] FCA 901 , 103 ALD 290. Many other instances can also be provided of Commonwealth and State legislatures authorising forfeiture of goods: eg, Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002 (Cth); Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 (NSW); Confiscation Act 1997 (Vic). See also: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Mylecharane [2007] NSWSC 1174 , 215 FLR 18 ; Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Nikolaou [2008] VSC 111 at [24] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15B Application of Acts in coastal sea</title>
<title id="l2">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 4AB Compensation for acquisition of property</title>
<title id="l4">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 185B Moving or destroying hazardous ships etc.</title>
<title id="l5">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 203 When seizure warrants for forfeited goods can be issued</title>
<title id="l6">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 205 Requirement to serve seizure notices</title>
<title id="l7">CUSTOMS ACT 1901 - SECT 229 Forfeited goods</title>
<title id="l8">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l9">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see Notes 10 and 11]</title>
<title id="l10">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 100 Nor abridge right to use water</title>
<title id="l11">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 106 Saving of Constitutions</title>
<title id="l12">FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l13">FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 - SECT 100 Using foreign boat for fishing in AFZ--strict liability offence</title>
<title id="l14">FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 - SECT 106 Forfeiture of things used in certain offences</title>
<title id="l15">FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 - SECT 106C Notice of seizure</title>
<title id="l16">FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1991 - SECT 106E Thing condemned if not claimed in time</title>
<title id="l17">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l18">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 3B Compensation for acquisition of property</title>
<title id="l19">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l20">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 42 Visa essential for travel</title>
<title id="l21">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 229 Carriage of non-citizens to Australia without documentation</title>
<title id="l22">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 232 Penalty on master, owner, agent and charterer of vessel</title>
<title id="l23">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261A Forfeiture of things used in certain offences</title>
<title id="l24">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261B Seizure of things used in certain offences</title>
<title id="l25">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261D Notice of seizure</title>
<title id="l26">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261E Dealing with thing before it is condemned</title>
<title id="l27">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261F Thing condemned if not claimed in time</title>
<title id="l28">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261G Dealing with claim for thing</title>
<title id="l29">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261H What happens if thing is claimed</title>
<title id="l30">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 261I Dealing with thing after it is condemned</title>
<title id="l31">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">proceedings relating to decisions of minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs refusing grant of student visa and refusing revocation of refusal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">where minister contended certain information protected under s 503a of migration act 1958 ("the act ")  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether anshun estoppel should apply to judicial review of administrative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">questions concerning the construction of s 503a of the act unreasonably not raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether special circumstances exist that permit raising questions in these proceedings that should reasonably have been raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">no special circumstances found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1997] FCA 246">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] re mario silverio macchia: ex parte: mario silverio macchia v charles philippe louis nilant as trustee of the bankrupt estate of mario silverio macchia [1997] fca 246 (11 april 1997)    bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1997] FCA 246">discharge of bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1997] FCA 246">discharge by effluxion of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1997] FCA 246">debtor's statement of affairs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1997] FCA 246">delay in filing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1997] FCA 246">abridgement of time required to elapse after filing of statement before automatic discharge from bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1997] FCA 246">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) para33(1)(c), sub-s149(3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">motion to dismiss, stay or transfer proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">originally application made to federal court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">common law native title claim prior to enactment of either commonwealth or state native title legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">that application remitted to supreme court of western australia under jurisdiction of courts (cross-vesting) act 1987 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">supreme court dismissed application for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">subsequent application made to national native title tribunal for determination of native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">that application still pending</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">fresh application made to federal court of australia for interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">whether application should be dismissed or stayed as an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">whether matter within jurisdiction of federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 951">alternatively whether matter should also be transferred to the supreme court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">police (wa)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">action against police officer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">statutory protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">act in carrying provisions of statute into effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">act in pursuance or execution or intended execution of public duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">limitation act 1935 (wa), s. 47a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">police act 1892 (wa), s. 138</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1993] HCA 57">interpretation act 1918 (wa), s. 47, par. h, 2nd sched.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">abuse of process of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">allegations in pleading by corporation inconsistent with allegations by director in other proceedings in industrial relations commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">principles underlying power to stay or dismiss for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">confidence in or respect for authority of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">restraint in exercise of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">vague and embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">inadequate material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">not cured by particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">striking out orders made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">general leave to amend.  truck act 1899-1904 ss.3, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">injury by accident arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">death of worker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">negligence of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">option of dependants to apply for compensation or take other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">award of compensation obtained by widow on behalf of herself and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">effect of award as barring claim by dependants under lord campbell's act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation acts 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">1946 (no. 3806</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">no. 5128) (vict.)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">wrongs act 1928 (no. 3807) (vict.), part iii.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">the 1946 workers' compensation rules, rr. 8, 81.*  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">supreme court (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">dismissal of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">rules of the supreme court (vict.), order xxv., rr. 2, 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">cross-vesting legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">application for extension of time in which to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">whether 'proceedings by way of an appeal'  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">appeal from proceedings within jurisdiction of state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">matters of exclusive federal jurisdiction raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">cross-vesting legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">whether interests of justice require state supreme court to determine appeal  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">attempt to relitigate matters previously determined in another jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">whether an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">citing from="[2008] WASCA 241">whether application for an extension of time should be refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1095">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1095">declaration sought pursuant to ss.116 and 58 of bankruptcy act 1966</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1095">whether anshun estoppel applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1095">whether special circumstance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1095">lengthy litigation history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2006] FMCA 1095">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] WASCA 241" id="cs0">12 On 13 March 2006, Siopis J summarily dismissed the appellant's application relating to his statement of affairs dated 7 October 1991: Macchia v Nilant (Trustee) [2006] FCA 213. Siopis J was satisfied that there was a clear case of an Anshun estoppel: Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45 ; (1981) 147 CLR 589. He went on to say that, had it been necessary for him to reach any conclusion in that respect, he would have found that the appellant's substantive application was an abuse of process.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 1095" id="cs1">The facts and background to the current application were summarised in just one of many Federal Court proceedings between the parties in Macchia v Nilant (Trustee) [2006] FCA 213 ( Macchia v Nilant 2006 ) where Siopis J relevantly summarised the background material in paragraphs 21-44 as follows:

 "21 It is necessary to examine briefly the history of litigation between the parties to understand the context in which the respondent brings his claim for summary dismissal or permanent stay.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 30 General powers of Courts in bankruptcy</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 33 Adjournment, amendment of process and extension and abridgment of times</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 33A Alteration of filing date for statement of affairs</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 54 Bankrupt's statement of affairs</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 55 Debtor's petition</title>
<title id="l6">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 146 Distribution of dividends where bankrupt fails to file statement of affairs [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l7">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 149 Automatic discharge</title>
<title id="l8">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 188 Debtor may authorise trustee or solicitor to be controlling trustee [see Table B]</title>
<title id="l9">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 306 Formal defect not to invalidate proceedings</title>
<title id="l10">BANKRUPTCY LEGISLATION AMENDMENT ACT 2002 </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>