Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">application under o 20 r 4 for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">native title determination application claim area split into areas a and b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">earlier determination that no native title exists for area a because traditional aboriginal society that existed at sovereignty had a substantial interruption in acknowledgement and observance of traditional laws and customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">whether earlier determination decided what the relevant aboriginal society was at sovereignty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">whether earlier determination decided same issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">failure to claim particular aboriginal society possessed native title rights and interests in earlier proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">whether an abuse of process to attempt to pursue that claim in proceedings for area b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">whether earlier determination decided a similar issue  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">principles applicable to an application under o 20 r 4 for summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2009] FCA 18">whether the current claim is a relitigation of the issue already determined in an earlier proceeding involving the same parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">review of decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether adequate interpreting services provided to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether applicant denied opportunity to give meaningful evidence to the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">applicant's credibility re his command of mandarin language</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether breach of s.425 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">credibility of applicant's claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">merits review not function of judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">whether breach of s.91r(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FMCA 1714">meaning of " conduct ... in australia " in s.91r(3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">use of interpreter in tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether interpretation of inadequate standard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether inadequacies in interpretation deprived appellant of fair opportunity to succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether failure to comply with tribunal's statutory obligation to invite appellant to appear before it to give evidence estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">res judicata estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">previous proceedings in respect of same decision of tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether judgment given in default of appearance without hearing on merits finally determines cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether judgment given in default of appearance courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">time limitations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">proceeding remitted from high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether time limits in high court rules applicable in federal magistrates court appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether appellant should have leave to add grounds of appeal not argued below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">grounds concerned inadequacy of interpretation at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">appellant previously without legal representation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">whether appellant should be allowed to adduce further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2007] FCA 1212">evidence of inadequacy of interpretation at tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 243">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 243">application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 243">application for leave to appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 243">dismissal pursuant to federal magistrates rules 13.03a(c) for non-appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 243">whether futile to grant leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 243">whether lack of bona fides on part of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 243">whether evidence ignored.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">application for review of tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">where applicant did not attend court on hearing date.practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">set aside judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">application to set aside judgment after applicant failed to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">motion for reinstatement of judicial review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">whether sufficient explanation advanced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">where applicant changed address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">where applicant claimed his migration agent notified the court of his change of address for service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2006] FMCA 1750">whether reinstatement futile.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 761">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 761">anshun estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 761">no special circumstances to preclude estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1723">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1723">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1723">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1723">use of interpreter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1723">role of interpreter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1723">standard of interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1699">courts and judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">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="cp11.2">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="cp11.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">whether anshun estoppel should apply to judicial review of administrative action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">questions concerning the construction of s 503a of the act unreasonably not raised in previous proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">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="cp11.9">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 242">no special circumstances found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether decision of primary judge final or interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">applicability of high court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">where application in the high court for the issue of the constitutional writs remitted to the federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">application in high court out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether lack of time limits for institution of application for issue of constitutional writs in federal court rules obviated the need for an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1076">whether time limits for application seeking issue of writs of certiorari and mandamus should give way where relief in the nature of prohibition warranted. judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">re-opening case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">order pronounced but not entered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">nature of review where re-opening allowed.  natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">disciplinary proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">barrister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">professional misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">charge of announcing appearance without instructions from solicitor and deliberately misleading court by informing it that instructed by solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">finding of deliberate lie</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 36">failure to give opportunity to be heard on whether finding should be made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">abuse of process of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">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="cp22.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">principles underlying power to stay or dismiss for abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">confidence in or respect for authority of courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">restraint in exercise of power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">vague and embarrassing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">inadequate material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">not cured by particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">striking out orders made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 523">general leave to amend.  truck act 1899-1904 ss.3, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.10">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="cp23.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">protection visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">whether jurisdictional error.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 208">principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">whether translation errors at tribunal hearing such that denial of a fair hearing under s.425 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 380">whether conduct of migration agent amounted to third party fraud such that the tribunal was unable to discharge its statutory functions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">where applicant identifies translation error in matter which constituted a ground for tribunal's credibility finding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether decision in applicant p119/2002 constituted dicta followed by federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether szjqn was a decision that was clearly wrong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether admitted error in translation was material</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1068">whether other claims of "want of logic" or "lack of evidence" were sustainable.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 878">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 878">application to review decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 878">application for an extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 878">application incompetent.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 208" id="cs0">Pastor Law's Affidavit purports to provide an expert opinion on the accuracy of the English translations of the Detention Documents in Chinese script which were before the Tribunal. [90] Pastor Law does not depose to being a certified translator. The first respondent does not object to Pastor Law's Affidavit being read on the basis that Pastor Law lacks the requisite expertise to provide an expert opinion as to Mandarin/English translation. Rather, it objects to the whole of Pastor Law's Affidavit on the ground of relevance because: issues about the accuracy of translation of the Detention Documents before the Tribunal relate to the merits of the Tribunal Decision, and hence are irrelevant to both the Extension of Time Application and the Amended Application; and the accuracy of translation of the Detention Documents is irrelevant to a judicial review application unless there is a ground of review alleging that there was deficient translation in the hearing before the Tribunal. [91] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 380" id="cs1">It was not disputed that the principles referred to in Appellant P119/2002 (which have been followed or cited with approval on numerous occasions: for example WALN v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 131 ; SZJZE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1653 ; SZJZS v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2008) 102 ALD 318 ; [2008] FCA 789 ; SZNCW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 818 ; SZHEW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 783 ; SZGSI and Another v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship and Another (2009) 107 ALD 414 ; [2009] FCA 200) are applicable. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1068" id="cs2">The integers of jurisdictional error arising out of mistranslation as articulated in P119/2002 , as extracted, appeared to have been accepted in a number of Federal Court decisions; WALN v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCAFC 131 per Ryan J (with whom Tamberlin and Middleton JJ agreed at [29]); SZJZE v Minister for Immigration [2007] FCA 1653 per Middleton J and SZJZS v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCA 789 per Flick J. In this year alone, three Judges of the Federal Court, hearing matters on appeal from this Court, have made direct reference and set out with approval the two criteria referred to in P119/2002. SZNCW v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 818 per Barker J; SZHEW v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 783 per Jagot J, where her Honour said at [49]; This approach reflects the reasoning of Kenny J in Perera v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 92 FCR 6; [1999] FCA 507. "
and in SZGSI v Minister for Immigration [2009] FCA 200 ; (2009) 107 ALD 414 per McKerracher J. In this Court, Smith FM dealt with an application in which the first ground of review argued that a critical mistranslation occurred in relation to one point.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 878" id="cs3">The applicant has had and took the opportunity to seek judicial review of the Tribunal decision in prior proceedings. He would, were the proceedings to go ahead, face insuperable difficulties in his application under principles of res judicata and Anshun estoppel, given the past final decision on the merits (see SZHEW v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 783) and the principles in relation to Anshun estoppel considered in Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 242 ; (2004) 146 FCR 10. The cause of action that was dismissed by Scarlett FM was in substance the same as that which the applicant seeks to raise again in the current proceedings. The two proceedings depend upon the same facts and seek review of the same Tribunal decision. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 427 Powers of the Refugee Review Tribunal etc.</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l10">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1018">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1018">application for extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">refusal of a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">applicant asserting that his protection visa application and his review application to the rrt were invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">protection visa application made by the applicant using a false name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">application nevertheless validly made as application authorised by the applicant and signed by him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">no reviewable error found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FMCA 356">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 199">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 199">migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 199">false visa application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 199">false application signed by appellant's confederate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 199">whether appellant responsible for content of false application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 199">whether application valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand-down" employees following declarations under s.43a of the telecommunications act 1975</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay.  administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 , s.11  telecommunications act 1975 , s.43a  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">application for extension of time to lodge application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">decision to "stand down" employees following declarations under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">principles relevant to granting extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">undue delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">relevance of public interest and prejudice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 11</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1983] FCA 91">telecommunications act 1975 (cth), s. 43a. during a period of industrial dispute the respondent "stood down" certain employees and made directions under s. 43a of the telecommunications act 1975 (cth) that those employees should not be paid their salary for the relevant period. following the end of the dispute the applicants' union commenced inquiries and sought legal advice as to the validity of the order to "stand down". the applicants gave no notice to the respondent of any intention to bring proceedings. the applications for extension of time (within which to lodge applications for orders to review) were lodged about eighteen months after the "stand down" orders.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">application for review of a decision of the rrt affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister not to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">applicant a citizen of china</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">where applicant did not attend the rrt hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">alleged fraud of migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">applicant party to fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">discretionary of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">citing from="[2008] FMCA 359">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1349">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1349">migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1349">denial of opportunity to cross examine</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1349">allegation of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1349">alleged failure to take into account the fact that a customs officer's usual practice did not comply with msi 383</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1349">alleged failure of the delegate to afford natural justice.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 359" id="cs0">I agree with Mr Johnson's submission that it cannot be that an Applicant's own fraud or a fraud to which he is a party would result in the Tribunal's decision being set aside. It would be absurd if all knowingly false claims were incapable of being the subject of a valid refusal. ( NAWZ at [118]; SZHTW v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [18] ; SZGJO v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [19] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1349" id="cs1">29. After the hearing, and in response to a request from the court, the first respondent filed further written submissions in relation to authorities concerning the effect of s.98 of the Act as follows:

 The decision of Smith FM in Shen v MIMIA [2004] FMCA 693 deals with section 98. At paragraph [3], His Honour stated that:

 The delegate's decision, which was affirmed by the Tribunal, applied a power conferred by s.109 of the Migration Act after deciding that " there was non-compliance by the holder of a visa " and after " having regard to " the list of discretionary considerations prescribed in Migration Regulation 2.41. The allegation of "non-compliance" which was found to be established was a failure to comply with the requirement of s.101 that " a non-citizen must fill in his or her application form in such a way that ... no incorrect answers are given . " The effect of ss.98, 100 and 111 is that a breach of this obligation can occur if an application form is filled in by someone else on behalf of the applicant, even if the applicant did not know that the answer was incorrect, and whether the non-compliance was deliberate or inadvertent. ...

 The other cases that refer to section 98 include: SZGJO v MIMIA [2006] FCA 393 ; NAWZ v MIMIA [2004] FCAFC 199 at [17] ; SZHLY v MIMIA [2006] FMCA 771 at [28] ; SZHTW v MIMIA [2006] FCA 1086 at [26] ; and SZBIV v MIMIA [2006] FCA 56

 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">health insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">professional services review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">statutory scheme for examination of conduct to ascertain whether inappropriate practice involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">where committee considered services rendered or initiated by person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">where samples of services may be considered in accordance with determination or approved method</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">whether committee complied with determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 195">whether failure to comply rendered decision invalid.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1061">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1061">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1061">whether discovery necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1061">whether statutory immunity a bar to discovery courts  judicial system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte lam  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">application for certiorari and prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">cancellation of applicant's visa for failure to pass character test under s 501(6) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">decision maker informed applicant that it would seek information from third party but then did not do so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">whether applicant denied procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 6">legitimate expectation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">coroners (w.a.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">inquest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">right of parents of deceased to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">extent of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">coroners act 1920 (w.a.), s. 24.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">application to coronial inquest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">right of parents of deceased to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">extent of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 57">coroners act 1920 (w.a.), s. 24.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">criminal law (s.a.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">sexual offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">indefinite detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">release on licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">offender at large on expiration of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">subsequent apprehension on warrant and return to detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">whether issue of warrant justified</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">criminal law consolidation act 1935 (s.a.) , s. 77a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">correctional services act 1982 (s.a.), s. 64.  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">governor in council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">indefinitely detained sexual offender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">power to release on licence on recommendation of parole board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">hearing by board</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">offender and counsel present</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">recommendation of release on licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">consideration by cabinet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">failure of governor in council to act on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">right to hearing by governor in council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.20">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">criminal law consolidation act 1935 (s.a.), s. 77a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.21">cited from="[1987] HCA 39">correctional services act 1982 (s.a.), s. 64.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">police offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">disorderly houses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">restaurant premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">declaration of premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">necessary factors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">ex parte order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">rescission granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">appeal by police</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">"allow"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">"allowance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">owner or occupier of premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">opportunity of being heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">disorderly houses acts 1943 (n.s.w.), ss. 3 (1), 4 (1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1958] HCA 6">disorderly houses regulations, reg. (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">order 56, supreme court (general civil procedure) rules 2005 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">whether hearing rule applies to removal of a teacher from a school and assignment of teacher to non-teaching duties pending a disciplinary inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">education and training reform act 2006 (vic), ss 2.4.3 , 2.4.44 , part 2.4 , division 10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">fettering of discretion by adherence to policy of removing teachers from their school pending a disciplinary inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">jurisdiction of merit protection boards established under s 2.4.44 , education and training reform act 2006 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">teaching service order 186</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">meaning of "personal grievance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">whether decision to assign teacher to non-teaching duties constitutes a personal grievance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">mandamus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">judge : kyrou j where held : melbourne date of hearing : 17-18 november 2008 date of judgment : 25 november 2008 case may be cited as : foster v secretary to the deecd medium neutral citation : [2008] vsc 504</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">order 56, supreme court (general civil procedure) rules 2005 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.17">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.18">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">whether hearing rule applies to removal of a teacher from a school and assignment of teacher to non-teaching duties pending a disciplinary inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.19">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">education and training reform act 2006 (vic), ss 2.4.3 , 2.4.44 , part 2.4 , division 10</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.20">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">fettering of discretion by adherence to policy of removing teachers from their school pending a disciplinary inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.21">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">jurisdiction of merit protection boards established under s 2.4.44 , education and training reform act 2006 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.22">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">teaching service order 186</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.23">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">meaning of "personal grievance"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.24">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">whether decision to assign teacher to non-teaching duties constitutes a personal grievance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.25">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.26">citing from="[2008] VSC 504">mandamus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">admininstrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">failure to give effect to the representation or procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether applicant suffered practical unfairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether the decision maker took into account explanation given by medical practitioner for high level of servicing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether no evidence ground of review open in relation to adjudicative referral  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">judicial immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 987">whether evidence exposing the process by which the professional services review committee made its decision is admissible for the purposes of impugning the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">health insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">statutory scheme for examination of conduct of medical practitioner to ascertain whether practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">commission's decision to make investigative referral challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">director's decision to make adjudicative referral to a professional services review committee challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">final report of committee challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">sampling methodology used by committee challenged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 984">held: application dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 504" id="cs0">52 For the reasons set out in paragraphs 49 to 51 of this judgment, Cornall and cases that ha [21] applied its reasoning21 can be distinguished. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 987" id="cs1">127 In any event, the question of whether a party has been denied procedural fairness must be assessed by reference to the whole process ( Phan v Kelly [2007] FCA 269 ; (2007) 158 FCR 75) ( Phan ). The evidence discloses that Dr Saint had legal representation at the hearing before the Committee, that he was provided with a draft report by the Committee which clearly identified the issues in respect of which he was at risk of an adverse finding and that he made very extensive submissions in response to the draft report.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 984" id="cs2">

66 As I understand Dr Carrick's submissions concerning the sampling methodology adopted by the Committee, she does not contend that the Committee breached any express requirement of the Determination. Rather she argues that it is necessarily implicit in the Determination that the Committee was required:

 'to find for itself and inspect a fresh pool of randomly selected medical services to examine, instead of examining a set of 30 from the 40 provided to them by the Director. '

Again, as I understand it, this is a re-run of an argument unsuccessfully advanced before Tamberlin J in Phan [2007] FCA 269.  79 The second error claimed to affect the methodology adopted by the Committee was that the preliminary random sample was not a random sample in the hands of the Committee because it had already been the subject of consideration by the Director. This argument was rejected by Tamberlin J in Phan [2007] FCA 269 at [52] . His Honour there observed:

 'In my view, the sample used in the present case was in accordance with the requirements of the Act. The evidence is that the Commission drew a preliminary random sample and that the Director required the production of records which he examined.

47 Appendix 2 to the Adjudicative Referral was a list of the first 40 randomly selected MBS item 30487 services (and the full medical records for the patients identified in that list) from the list of randomly selected MBS item 30487 services provided to the Director by the Commission. Dr Carrick's outline opening statement indicated that her case concerning the Adjudicative Referral was that the discretion of the Director to refer the matter to a Committee hearing miscarried because he included in his referral 'the already examined patient medical files of [Dr Carrick] for the Committee for it to examine again' (emphasis in original). This appears to be a re-run of an argument unsuccessfully advanced before Tamberlin J in Phan v Kelly [2007] FCA 269.
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 6 Applications for review of conduct related to making of decisions</title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 129 Exclusion of evidence of reasons for judicial etc. decisions</title>
<title id="l6">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 </title>
<title id="l7">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 82 Definitions of inappropriate practice</title>
<title id="l8">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 83 The Director of Professional Services Review</title>
<title id="l9">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 86 Chief Executive Medicare may request Director to review provision of services</title>
<title id="l10">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 88 Director may request further information</title>
<title id="l11">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 89B Power of Director to require the production of documents or the giving of information</title>
<title id="l12">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 90 Director may consult on decisions</title>
<title id="l13">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 91 Decision to take no further action</title>
<title id="l14">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 92 Agreement entered into between Director and person under review</title>
<title id="l15">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 93 Referral to a Committee</title>
<title id="l16">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 98 Conduct of meetings</title>
<title id="l17">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 101 Hearings</title>
<title id="l18">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 102 Notice of hearings</title>
<title id="l19">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 103 Rights of persons under review at hearings</title>
<title id="l20">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 104 Consequences of failing to appear, give evidence or answer a question when required</title>
<title id="l21">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 105A Power of Committee to require the production of documents or the giving of information</title>
<title id="l22">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106 Conduct of hearings</title>
<title id="l23">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106K Committee may have regard to samples of services</title>
<title id="l24">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106L Final report of Committee</title>
<title id="l25">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106Q The Determining Authority</title>
<title id="l26">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106T Draft determination</title>
<title id="l27">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106TA Final determination</title>
<title id="l28">HEALTH INSURANCE ACT 1973 - SECT 106U Content of draft and final determinations</title>
<title id="l29">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l30">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l31">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l32">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 435 Protection of members and persons giving evidence</title>
<title id="l33">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 202 Groundless threats of legal proceedings in relation to copyright infringement</title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 128 Application for relief from unjustified threats</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1044">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1044">representative proceeding claiming breach of continuous disclosure obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1044">investigation by australian securities and investments commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1044">subpoena to asic to produce documents obtained and created in course of investigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1044">no opposition by asic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1044">opposition by respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">order under s 50 of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">whether order should continue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">application of australian prudential regulation authority act 1998 (cth) and insurance act 1973 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">material supplied subject to obligations of confidentiality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">where court has no power to order production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">whether access to evidence on the court file should be granted to media organisations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1168">whether evidence admitted in court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 606">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 606">applications by non-parties to inspect documents on court file pursuant to federal court rules , o 46 r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 606">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 606">public interest in proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 606">no exceptional circumstances justifying refusal of leave to inspect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 606">leave granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">media access to affidavits in evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">affidavits filed in ex parte proceedings for interim preservation orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">exhibiting transcripts of examinations under s 19 of the asic act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">objections based on speculative risks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 407">access permitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">public access to documentary evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic courtroom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">electronic media court book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1394">federal court rules , o 46 r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 101">court documents  access for non-parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">ex parte injunctive interlocutory proceedings resulting in mareva orders but proceedings on merits otherwise not heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">access sought to pleadings against wishes of the parties by non-party financial newspaper on public interest grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">practice note no. 97 and pt 67 r7 scr</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">relevant principles guiding discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">harman principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2000] NSWSC 929">comparison with transcript.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">ex parte application on behalf of the trustee of the bankrupt estate of mr coshott</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">to inspect material on the files in the hearing of the creditor's petition and the uncontested entitlement to sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">contents of files relevant to the investigation by the trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">registrar ruling denied access to affidavits under o.46, r.6(3) of the federal court rules (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">affidavits admitted into evidence and subject to cross examination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">principle of open justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 822">registrar's ruling set aside.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 822" id="cs0">A helpful review and summary of the relevant authorities is found in Re Universal Music (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sharman Licence Holdings Ltd; Ex parte Merlin BV [2008] FCA 783 at [30] - [44] per Jacobson J: [30] With the exception of one authority to which I will refer later, the principles which govern the exercise of the discretion to grant access by a non-party under O 46 r 6 are to be found in cases dealing with applications by media organisations. [31] This is hardly surprising because the principle which informs the exercise of the power is that of open justice, the underlying rationale being the belief that exposure to public scrutiny is the surest safeguard against abuse of power of the courts: see Seven Network at [21]ff; Re Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd ; ; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No 2) [2006] FCA 407 ; [2006] FCA 407 ; (2006) 232 ALR 398 at [16] ff; Rich v Harrington [2007] FCA 1979 ; (2007) 99 ALD 297 at [17] ff. [32] In Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission  Distribution Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 609 , Finkelstein J said at [7] that the proper approach is that access should be allowed unless the interests of justice require a different course.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 230" id="cs1">This statement of principle has been applied in a number of first instance decisions of this Court: see Nicholls v Australian Federal Police (No 2) [2009] FCA 123 at [4] per Mansfield J; Re Universal Music (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sharman Licence Holdings Ltd; Ex parte Merlin BV [2008] FCA 783 at [31] - [33] per Jacobson J; Rich v Harrington [2007] FCA 1979 at [23] per Branson J; Y v University of Western Australia (No 2) [2006] FCA 466 ; (2006) 151 FCR 322 at 332 [46] per Siopis J; Re Richstar Enterprises Pty Ltd; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Carey (No 2) [2006] FCA 407 ; (2006) 232 ALR 398 at 403 [18] per French J. The earlier decision of Finkelstein J in Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v ABB Transmission and Distribution Ltd (No 3) [2002] FCA 609 was to a similar effect except that the reasoning was in terms at [7] confined to:
... cases where a non-party seeks access to material which has been relied upon by the judge. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 104 Acts done for purposes of judicial proceeding</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l1">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1933">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1933">extension of convening period for second meeting of creditors of company in administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 313">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 313">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 313">extension of time for second meeting of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 313">applicable principles discussed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 313">extension granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 468">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 468">voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 468">second meeting of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 468">extension of convening period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 468">manner of giving notice of meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 468">(cth) corporations act ss 439a, 447a, 447d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">extension of time for convening second creditors' meeting pursuant to s 439a(6) of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">reasons justifying extension</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">complex liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">balancing test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">position of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 30">extension granted</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 468" id="cs0">In Re Riviera Group Pty Ltd (admins apptd) (recs and mgrs apptd) [2009] NSWSC 585 ; (2009) 72 ACSR 352 , Austin J at para 11 surveyed the authorities and summarised, at para 13, the reasons given for extension in cases subsequent to Mann v Abruzzi Sports Club Ltd (1994) 12 ACSR 611 as follows:

 [13] The reasons given for an extension in subsequent cases can be grouped into the following broad categories:

 the size and scope of the business: Lombe, Re Babcock  Brown Ltd (admins apptd) [2009] FCA 349 ; Worrell; Re Storm Financial Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) [2009] FCA 70 ; ABC Learning Centres Ltd, Re of ABC Learning Centres Ltd; application by Walker (No 5) [2008] FCA 1947 ; substantial offshore activities: Lehman Bros Australia Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1132 ; large number of employees with complex entitlements: Re S  D International Pty Ltd (in liq); Malhotra v Tiwari [2005] VSC 496 ; Re Ansett Australia (All admin apptd) and Korda (As admins) [2002] FCA 90 ; complex corporate group structure and intercompany loans: Lombe, Re Babcock  Brown Ltd (admins apptd) [2009] FCA 349 ; Re Octaviar Ltd (admins apptd) (recs and mgrs apptd) [2008] QSC 272 ; Re of LED Builders Pty Ltd (admins apptd); LED Builders Pty Ltd (admins apptd) [2008] NSWSC 633 ; Hall, Re of Australian Capital Reserve Ltd (admins apptd) [2007] FCA 1328 ; complex transactions entered into by the company (eg securities lending or derivatives transactions): In Re Lift Capital Partners Ltd (admins apptd) [2008] NSWSC 446 ; complex prospects of recovery proceedings: Worrel, Re Storm Financial Ltd (admins apptd) [2009] FCA 70 ; Deputy Cmr of Taxation v Wellnora Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1324 ; lack of access to corporate financial records: Sims, Re Destra Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 2002 ; Fincorp Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2007] NSWSC 363 ; the time needed to execute an orderly process of disposal of assets: Carter, Re SFM Australasia Pty Ltd (admins apptd) (No 2) [2009] FCA 419 ; ABC Learning Centres Ltd, Re ABC Learning Centres Ltd; application by Walker (No 7) [2009] FCA 454 ; the time needed for thorough assessment of a proposal for a deed of company arrangement: Silvia, Re Austcorp Group Ltd (admins apptd) [2009] FCA 636 ; where the extension will allow sale of the business as a going concern: Lombe Re Australian Discount Retail Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 110 ; Stewart, Re Kleins Franchising Pty Ltd (admins apptd) [2008] FCA 721 ; Uni-Aire Security Pty Ltd (admins apptd, Re of Uni-Aire Security Pty Ltd (admins apptd) [2006] FCA 1423 ; more generally, that additional time is likely to enhance the return for unsecured creditors: Deputy Cmr of Taxation v Scottsdale Homes No 3 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 190 ; Fitzgerald, Re of Primebroker Securities Ltd (admin apptd) (recs and mgrs apptd) [2008] FCA 1247 ; Ex parte Vouris; Re Marrickville Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd (under Administration) [2008] DCA 622. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 30" id="cs1">As to the effect, if any, of an extension upon creditors, particularly those who are subject to a statutory moratorium upon exercising their rights: Re Diamond Press at [8], Re Austcorp at [18], it will be relevant to take into account that no objection to an extension was raised at a first meeting of creditors or in response to a circular notifying creditors of an extension application: In the matter of Henry Walker Eltin Group Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2005] FCA 316 at [2] , Re Hans at [13], Re Babcock and Brown Ltd [2009] FCA 349 at [35] . I am told that the administrators are not aware of any creditors whose claim would be barred as a result of the extensions sought.  A variety of other reasons which would also justify an extension are categorised by Austin J in Re; Riviera Group Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 585 ; (2009) 72 ACSR 352 at 355, [13] where his Honour said:

 [13] The reasons given for an extension in subsequent cases can be grouped into the following broad categories:

 the size and scope of the business: Re Lombe; Babcock  Brown Ltd (admins apptd) [2009] FCA 349 (Re Lombe); Re Worrell; Storm Financial Ltd (recs and mgrs apptd) (2009) 69 ACSR 584 ; [2009] FCA 70 (Re Worrell); Re ABC Learning Centres Ltd; Application by Walker (No 5) [2008] FCA 1947 ; substantial offshore activities: Re Lehman Bros Australia Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1132 ; large number of employees with complex entitlements: Re S  D International Pty Ltd (in liq); Malhotra v Tiwari [2005] VSC 496 ; Re Ansett Australia Ltd and Korda; sub nom Ansett Australia Ltd (No 3) (FCR) (2002) 115 FCR 409 ; 40 ACSR 433 ; [2002] FCA 90 ; complex corporate group structure and intercompany loans: Re Lombe; Re Octaviar Ltd (admins apptd) (recs and mgrs apptd) (ACN 107 863 436) [2008] QSC 272 ; Re LED Builders Pty Ltd (admin apptd) [2008] NSWSC 633 ; Hall; Re Australian Capital Reserve Ltd (admins apptd) [2007] FCA 1328 ; complex transactions entered into by the company (for example securities lending or derivatives transactions): In Re Lift Capital Partners Pty Ltd (admin apptd) [2008] NSWSC 446 ( Re Lift Capital ); complex prospects of recovery proceedings: Re Worrell; Coal Developments (German Creek) Pty Ltd v Cmr of Taxation (2007) 241 ALR 667 ; [2007] FCA 1324 ; lack of access to corporate financial records: Re Sims; Destra Corp Ltd [2008] FCA 2002 ; Re Fincorp Group Holdings Pty Ltd (2007) 62 ACSR 192 ; [2007] NSWSC 363 ; the time needed to execute an orderly process of disposal of assets: Re Carter, SFM Australasia Pty Ltd (admin apptd) (ACN 105 317 333) (No 2) [2009] FCA 419 ; Re ABC Learning Centres Ltd; Application by Walker (No 7) (2009) 71 ACSR 560 ; [2009] FCA 454 ; the time needed for thorough assessment of a proposal for a deed of company arrangement: Silvia, Re Austcorp Group Ltd (admin apptd) [2009] FCA 636 ; where the extension will allow sale of the business as a going concern: Re Lombe; Australian Discount Retail Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 110 ; Stewart, Re Kleins Franchising Pty Ltd (admin apptd) [2008] FCA 721 ; Re Uni-Aire Security Pty Ltd (admin apptd) [2006] FCA 1423 ; more generally, that additional time is likely to enhance the return for unsecured creditors: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Scottsdale Homes No Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 190 ; Re Fitzgerald; Primebroker Securities Ltd (admin apptd) (recs and mgrs apptd) [2008] FCA 1247 ; Re Vouris; Marrickville Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd [2008] FCA 622. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 585" id="cs2">13 The reasons given for an extension in subsequent cases can be grouped into the following broad categories:
· the size and scope of the business: Lombe, Re Babcock  Brown Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2009] FCA 349 ; Worrell; Re Storm Financial Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2009] FCA 70 ; ABC Learning Centres Ltd, in the matter of ABC Learning Centres Ltd; application by Walker (No 5) [2008] FCA 1947 ;
· substantial offshore activities: Lehman Bros Australia Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1132 ;
· large number of employees with complex entitlements: Re S  D International Pty Ltd (in liq); Malhotra v Tiwari [2005] VSC 496 ; Re Ansett Australia  Ors (All Admin Appointed) and Korda and Anor (As Administrators) [2002] FCA 90 ;
· complex corporate group structure and intercompany loans: Lombe, Re Babcock  Brown Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2009] FCA 349 ; Re Octaviar Limited (Administrators Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed (ACN 107 863 436) [2008] QSC 272 ; In the matter of LED Builders Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed); LED Builders Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) and Ors [2008] NSWSC 633 ; Hall, in the matter of Australian Capital Reserve Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2007] FCA 1328 ;
· complex transactions entered into by the company (e.g. securities lending or derivatives transactions): In the matter of Lift Capital Partners Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2008] NSWSC 446 ;
· complex prospects of recovery proceedings: Worrel, Re Storm Financial Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2009] FCA 70 ; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Wellnora Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1324 ;
· lack of access to corporate financial records: Sims, in the matter of Destra Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 2002 ; Fincorp Group Holdings Pty Ltd  Ors [2007] NSWSC 363 ;
· the time needed to execute an orderly process of disposal of assets: Carter, in the matter of SFM Australasia Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) ACN 105 317 333 (No 2) [2009] FCA 419 ; ABC Learning Centres Ltd, in the matter of ABC Learning Centres Ltd; application by Walker (No 7) [2009] FCA 454 ;
· the time needed for thorough assessment of a proposal for a deed of company arrangement: Silvia, in the matter of Austcorp Group Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2009] FCA 636 ;
· where the extension will allow sale of the business as a going concern: Lombe Re Australian Discount Retail Pty Ltd [2009] NSWSC 110 ; Stewart, in the matter of Kleins Franchising Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) (ACN 007 348 236) [2008] FCA 721 ; Uni-Aire Security Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) ACN 085 430 619, in the matter of Uni-Aire Security Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) ACN 085 430 619 [2006] FCA 1423 ;
· more generally, that additional time is likely to enhance the return for unsecured creditors: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Scottsdale Homes No 3 Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 190 ; Fitzgerald, in the matter of Primebroker Securities Limited (Administrator Appointed) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2008] FCA 1247 ; Ex parte Vouris; in the matter of Marrickville Bowling and Recreation Club Ltd (under Administration) [2008] DCA 622.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 439A Administrator to convene meeting and inform creditors</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 447A General power to make orders</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">the applicant file and serve any submissions and further material in relation to penalty and financial compensation orders against the first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh respondents on or before 17 september 2009. service of the above material be effected by the means set out in order 2 of the court's orders of 31 july 2009, namely, that the material be served on the respondents at the following addresses by prepaid post: 2.1. first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">c/</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">tarek salcedo, 43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 2.2. second respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">c/</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">denham  associates, suite 8, 3990 pacific highway, loganholme, queensland, 4219 2.3. fourth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 2.4. fifth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 2.5. seventh respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 887">43 forbes street, west end, queensland, 4101 the matter be re-listed for directions in relation to any penalty hearing as against the first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh respondents at 9:30am on 18 september 2009.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">where respondent made representations to mobile telephone users that they had a 'secret admirer'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">where applicant responded to messages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">whether first respondent was correct legal entity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">whether second respondent was knowingly concerned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">whether conduct in breach of s.52 trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">whether conduct induced error in the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">whether conduct unconscionable and in breach of s.51ab trade practices act 1974</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1410">whether injunctive relief appropriate.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">application for extension of time to bring proceedings under the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">whether extension should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">whether proceedings under s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) were commenced within a reasonable time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">whether licensing authority misconstrued provisions of the broadcasting services act 1992 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">whether licensing authority took into account irrelevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">whether licensing authority failed to take account of relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">whether decision unreasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1691">whether there was evidence for licensing authority's finding.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">markarian v the queen  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">drug offence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">appellant acted as driver for heroin dealer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">appellant pleaded guilty and asked that four other offences be taken into account by sentencing judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether court of criminal appeal adopted impermissible approach to sentencing by means of staged approach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether staged approach to be preferred to instinctive synthesis of sentencer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">relevance of maximum available sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">relevance of quantity of drug.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">prosecution appeal against sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">court of criminal appeal increased sentence from 2 years and 6 months to 8 years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether court of criminal appeal was wrong to find that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether re-sentencing discretion miscarried.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">re-sentencing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">further offences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">additional discrete sentence added to head sentence for further offences disclosed by offender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether such approach a breach of totality principle.  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">failure by trial judge and court of criminal appeal to consider an obligatory requirement of sentencing statute in determining appellant's sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2005] HCA 25">whether sentencing discretion of trial judge and court of criminal appeal miscarried because of such omission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">price-fixing understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">consideration of principles applicable to the imposition of an appropriate penalty for making and giving effect to the price-fixing understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1425">trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1425">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1425">collusive tendering</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1425">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1425">agreed facts on penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1425">general deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] n w frozen foods proprietary ltd v australian competition  consumer commission [1996] fca 1134 (20 december 1996)    trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalties under s.76 for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of agreement between a.c.c.c. and corporation on joint submissions proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">desirability of settlement of such cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalty cases not criminal prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of undertaking by corporation of a compliance programme agreed with the commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">difficulties in comparing penalties in other cases with that proposed for the instant case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">importance of the particular market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of identity of corporation to be penalised where it was a member of a group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of whether a corporation has previously contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">inappropriateness of diminishing the credit to be given a corporation for co-operation and admission of liability by reference to any costs saving it may achieve thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">reference to u.s. law conceding the u.s. federal trade commission "a special competence in formulating remedies"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">discussion of the question for the court where penalty is the subject of an agreed joint submission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">resale price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">sale of petroleum by respondent to dealer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">relevant matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">two contraventions of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">same officer of company involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">both contraventions in relation to one dealer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">whether injunction appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">additional penalty  trade practices act 1974 ss. 76 , 77 , 80  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">resale price maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">whether injunction should go</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1984] FCA 363">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 76 , 77 , 80 . observations concerning matters relevant to the quantum of a penalty for engaging in resale price maintenance and concerning whether an injunction should go and the terms of any such injunction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1383">communications law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1383">unsolicited sms messages (spam)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1383">use of fake dating profiles to exploit mobile phone users financially and emotionally</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1383">penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1383">consideration of relevant principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1383">where respondent found to be knowingly concerned in the contraventions of the spam act 2003 (cth) ss 16 , 24 , 25 and trade practices act 1974 (cth) s 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1565">communications law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1565">consideration of a joint submission by the parties in relation to a contravention by the respondent of s 16 of the spam act 2003 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1565">consideration of the principles to be applied in assessing a pecuniary penalty in the context of joint submissions as to the proposed penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1565">consideration of the extent to which the principles governing assessment of a pecuniary penalty in the context of a joint submission derived from proceedings under the trade practices act 1974 (cth) might usefully apply in the assessment of a penalty under the spam act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1565">consideration of the formulation of a declaration as to contravention and the framing of an injunction restraining threatened future contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1565">consideration of the particular vice the parliament of the commonwealth sought to address in enacting the spam act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1533">communications law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1533">unsolicited sms messages (spam)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1533">use of fake dating profiles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1533">contraventions established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1533">considerations applicable to imposition of pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1383" id="cs0">As to penalty I have, in respect of other respondents, earlier had occasion to canvass considerations which I regard as relevant to the imposition of penalties under the Spam Act : see Australian Communications and Media Authority and Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong (No 4) [2009] FCA 1225 ; (2009) 180 FCR 467 and Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated In Hong Kong (No 6) [2009] FCA 1533. I do not propose to rehearse all which I have stated in those earlier reasons for judgment as to principles applicable in relation to the imposition of penalty. Suffice it to say, I have taken into account the principles which I have set out, particularly those in the No 4 judgment. Therefore, these reasons for judgment should also be read in conjunction with the discussion of principle, in the No 4 and No 6 judgments. Those judgments are also pertinent, in terms of penalties which have been imposed on other respondents, in respect of contraventions, either corporate or accessorial, of the Spam Act . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1565" id="cs1">There have now been three judgments of the Court in respect of contraventions of s 16 (among other provisions) of the Spam Act . They are, Australian Communications and Media Authority v Clarity1 Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1399 ; (2006) 155 FCR 377 per Nicholson J; Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong (No 4) [2009] FCA 1225 ; (2009) 261 ALR 326 per Logan J; and a further ex tempore judgment by Logan J on 16 December 2009 concerning further respondents in the Mobilegate litigation ( Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd (No 6) [2009] FCA 1533). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1533" id="cs2">The general nature of the conduct which is alleged by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (Authority) to constitute contraventions of the Spam Act 2003 (Cth) (Spam Act), together with pertinent principles in relation to the imposition of penalty are canvassed at some length in reasons for judgment which I delivered on 23 October 2009 in Australian Communications and Media Authority v Mobilegate Ltd A Company Incorporated in Hong Kong (No 4) [2009] FCA 1225 (ACMA v Mobilegate (No 4)). These reasons for the judgment should also then, in respect of those two subjects, be read in conjunction with that earlier (ACMA v Mobilegate (No 4)) judgment in this matter. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l1">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 4AA Penalty units</title>
<title id="l2">SPAM ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l3">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 16 Unsolicited commercial electronic messages must not be sent</title>
<title id="l4">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 24 Pecuniary penalties for contravention of civil penalty provisions</title>
<title id="l5">SPAM ACT 2003 - SECT 25 Maximum penalties for contravention of civil penalty provisions</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>