Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">admitted contraventions of transport workers award 1998</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">underpayment of wages to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">where multiple breaches of award arose out of single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">relevant considerations in determining level of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1080">penalty determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">breaches of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">underpayment of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">breaches admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">same course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">factors going to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">pecuniary penalties imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">application of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">payment of outstanding wages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FMCA 7">interest on outstanding wages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 220">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 220">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 220">where a contravention of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) was admitted by each respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 220">factors for consideration.  workplace relations act 1996 (cth), ss.728 , 900 , 904  australian opthalmic supplies pty ltd v mcalary-smith (2008) 165 fcr 560 ; [2008] fcafc 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">contravention of civil remedy provisions of workplace relations act and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">numerous underpayments and other breaches of preserved state award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">appropriate penalties to be imposed on sole director of employer company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">high levels of culpability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">few mitigating circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">penalties totalling $82,100 imposed.  crimes act 1914 (cth), s.4aa  vehicle industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">repair services and retail (state) award (nsw) , pt.a, cll.2(e)(i)(5), 2(e)(ii)(7)(iv), 6(4)(a)(ii), 6(4)(c), 14(a)(ii), 15(a)(ii), 16(a)(ii), 17(a)(i)-(vi), 18(a)(i)-(iii) workplace relations act 1996 (cth), ss.182 , 182 (1), 232 , 232(2), 234, 234(2), 235, 235(2), 246, 246(2), 246(3), 246(4), 719, 719(1), 719(2), 719(6), 719(7), 722, 728, 841 workplace relations regulations 2006 (cth), ch.2 pt.19, regs.14.4, 14.5, 19.5, 19.8, 19.8(1)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 981">(e), 19.11, 19.11(3)(c)-(d), 19.12, 19.12(1)(a)-(c), 19.14, 19.14(1)(a)-(b), 19.18, 19.18(1)(b), (2), (3)(b), 19.20, 19.20(3), 19.21, 19.21(1)(k)(i)  australian ophthalmic supplies pty ltd v mcalary-smith [2008] fcafc 8 ; (2008) 165 fcr 560</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">underpayment of basic rates of pay and non payment of casual loadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">consideration of matters relevant to penalty.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 621">removal of a company in liquidation as an unnecessary and inappropriate respondent.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">shop employees (state) award and annual holidays loadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 599">consideration of matters relevant to penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 763">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 763">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 763">contravention of regulation 3.42(4) of the fair work regulations 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 763">failure to produce requested employee record to applicants as soon as practicable after request</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 763">inadmissible evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 763">factors for consideration in assessment of penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">contravention of civil remedy provisions of the workplace relations act and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">failure to pay annual leave entitlements on termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">failure to pay employee for time worked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">respondent companies placed in voluntary administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">admission of contravention by group general manager</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 718">liability to penalties established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">contravention of awa requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">delay in lodgement of one awa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">failure to pay napsa rates prior to lodgement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">failure to pay 'fairness-test compensation' after termination of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">involvement of sole director and manager</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">substantial mitigating circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">legislative changes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">cooperation of person responsible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">general and individual deterrence considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">discretion to impose no penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2010] FMCA 384">total penalties of $6,000 and $800 imposed on employer and director.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">agreed statement of facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">records relating to employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">contravention of requirement to produce records for inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">contravention of requirement to make records relating to an employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">consent declarations and orders except as to quantum of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">quantum of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 204">factors for consideration in assessing quantum of penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 49">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 49">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 49">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 49">factors for consideration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 49">to whom penalty to be paid.  crimes act 1914 (cth), s.4aa  federal magistrates act 1999 (cth), s.77(3)  fair work act 2009 (cth), ss.86</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 49">94</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">where contraventions of workplace relations act and regulations admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1255">factors for consideration.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">records relating to employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">alleged contravention of requirement to produce records for inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">whether request made of correct entity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">nature of a trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">trustee's obligations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">effect of withdrawal of penalty infringement notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">whether first time contravener</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">factors for consideration.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">admission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">whether admission can be withdrawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">factors for consideration.  trusts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">nature of a trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1132">trustee's obligations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1003">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1003">contravention of freedom of association protections</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1003">union organiser's coercion of subcontractor and his workers to become members of union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1003">union organisations liable for his conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1003">penalties of $2,600 and $13,000 imposed on organiser and unions.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 664">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 664">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 664">admitted breach of civil penalty provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 664">consideration of factors relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 664">course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 664">whether more than one penalty sought.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">undefended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">no wages or superannuation paid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">2 employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">deliberate conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">previous contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">breaches of s.182(1) and 185 (2) of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) and clauses of napsa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 38">penalty determined.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">contravention of workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">employment of nurses working under labour-hire agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">employees' entitlements withheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">exploitation of migrant nurses in vulnerable position</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">four breaches by company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">involvement of sole director</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">deterrent penalties appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">application of totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1050">total penalties of $48,000 and $8,000 ordered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1105">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1105">application for civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1105">breach of applicable provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1105">breaches admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1105">considerations as to penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">where breaches of award and workplace relations act admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">whether multiple breaches should be considered single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 1028">application of totality principle.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">penalties for contravention of workplace relations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">lodgement of union collective agreement lacking employees' approval</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">inducing employees to cease membership of their union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">continuing effects of contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">penalties reflecting need for deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">no reduction under the totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 920">total penalties of $43,000 imposed.  workplace relations act 1996 (cth), ss.337 , 340 , 341 , 407 (1)(b), 794 , 807 (2), 841  australian ophthalmic supplies pty ltd v mcalary-smith [2008] fcafc 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 213">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 213">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 213">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 213">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 213">consideration of matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 213">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 213">admission of breach and appropriate reduction of penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 212">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 212">award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 212">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 212">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 212">consideration of matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 212">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 212">admission of breach and appropriate reduction of penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">contraventions of award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">employee incorrectly paid reduced 'indentured apprentice' rates during six months 'trial'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">nine breaches of different terms admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">senior managers were responsible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">large employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">deterrent penalties appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">application of totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2008] FMCA 101">total penalties of $93,600 ordered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 79">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 79">application for civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 79">breach of applicable provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 79">breaches admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 79">considerations as to penalty.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] VMC 21" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 220" id="cs1">I have borne in mind that any list of relevant matters is not exhaustive and does not fetter the court's discretion as to the matters to be considered in setting a penalty (see Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). The weight to be given to particular factors may vary from case to case. Each factor needs to be weighed in the " intuitive synthesis " involved in the sentencing process (see Australian Opthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560 ; [2008] FCAFC 8 and Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan (2008) 168 FCR 383 ; [2008] FCAFC 70 at [60] --- [63] and cases cited therein). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 981" id="cs2">Sentencing considerations
 Counsel for the Fair Work Ombudsman framed his submissions on penalty by reference to headings taken from the well-known list of sentencing considerations suggested in this area by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 , and summarised by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 ; (2007) 166 IR 14 at [14] . The list of considerations can guide, but is not a substitute for "the unrestrained statutory discretion" (cf. Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). Ultimately, I must arrive at an amount within the range of penalties provided in the legislation which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and also takes into account other sentencing considerations including deterrence (cf. Graham J in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 ; (2008) 165 FCR 560 at [54] ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 621" id="cs3">This summary was adopted by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [28] . While the summary is a convenient checklist, it does not prescribe or restrict the matters which may be taken into account in the exercise of the Court's discretion: Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [29] ; Merringtons at [91] per Buchanan J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 599" id="cs4">This summary was adopted by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 IR 14 ; [2007] FCA 1080 , [14]. While the summary is a convenient checklist, it does not prescribe or restrict the matters which may be taken into account in the exercise of the Court's discretion: Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 , [11]; Merringtons at [91] per Buchanan J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 763" id="cs5">Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.4AA
 Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss.56(2) , 59 (1)
 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.3(b) , (c) and (e), 12 , 546 (2)(b)
 Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), regs.3.42(4), 3.45, 3.46, 4.01A -Item 12
 Abrahams v Qantas Airways Ltd (2007) 210 FLR 314 ; [2007] FMCA 639
 ACCC v IPM Operation and Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No.2) [2007] FCA 11
 Alcantara  Anor v Buildpower Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 626
 Australian Ophthalmic Supplies v McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560 ; [2008] FCAFC 8
 CFMEU v Austral Bricks (Qld) Pty Ltd (2009) 224 FLR 178; [2009] FMCA 143
 Carr v CEPU  Anor [2007] FMCA 1526
 Commonwealth Bank of Australia  Anor v Finance Sector Union (2007) 157 FCR 329 ; [2007] FCAFC 18
 Cotis v Macpherson (2007) 169 IR 80 ; [2007] FMCA 2060
 Doukidis v Williamson (2008) 6 ABC(NS) 717; [2008] FMCA 1352
 Fair Work Ombudsman v Industrial Roadpavers (WA) Pty Ltd (2010) 194 IR 436 ; [2010] FMCA 204
 Fair Work Ombudsman v Primrose Development Company Pty Ltd (2009) 183 IR 447 ; [2009] FMCA 632
 Finance Sector Union v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (2005) 224 ALR 467 ; [2005] FCA 1847
 Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 IR 14; [2007] FCA 1080
 Klousia v TKM Investments Pty Ltd  Anor [2009] FMCA 208
 Lawlor v Personal Hire Pty Ltd (2009) 179 IR 91 ; [2009] FMCA 228
 Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd v CFMEU (2006) 164 IR 375 ; [2006] WASC 317
 Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union v Cuddles Management Pty Ltd (No. 2) (2009) 188 IR 435 ; [2009] FMCA 746
 Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7
 Mornington Inn Pty Ltd v Jordan (2008) 168 FCR 383 ; [2008] FCAFC 70
 Olsen v Sterling Crown Pty Ltd (2008) 177 IR 337 ; [2008] FMCA 1392
 Rojas v Esselte Australia Pty Ltd (No. 2) (2008) 177 IR 306 ; [2008] FCA 1585
 Secretary, Department of Health  Ageing v Pagasa Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1545
 Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550
 Verge  Anor v Devere Holdings Pty Ltd  Ors (No. 3) [2008] FMCA 1220
 Workplace Ombudsman v Golden Maple Pty Ltd (2009) 186 IR 211 ; [2009] FMCA 664
 Workplace Ombudsman v KSN Engineering Pty Ltd (2009) 185 IR 316 ; [2009] FMCA 538
 Workplace Ombudsman v Saya Cleaning Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 38
 Workplace Ombudsman v SRS Investments (WA) Pty Ltd (2009) 191 IR 426 ; [2009] FMCA 1132
 First Applicant: FLORANTE ALCANTARA
 Second Applicant: THOMIE PACHO
 Respondent: BUILDPOWER PTY LTD
 File Number: PEG 64 of 2010
 Judgment of: Lucev FM
 Hearing date: 5 October 2010
 Date of Last Submission: 5 October 2010
 Delivered at: Perth
 Delivered on: 8 October 2010
 REPRESENTATION
 Counsel for the First and Second Applicants: Mr J Nicholas
 Solicitor for the First and Second Applicants: Shannon Walker, CFMEU
 For the Respondent: Mr M Slabbert (by leave)
 ORDERS

 (1) That in relation to the Respondent's contraventions of regulation 3.42(4) of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) in relation to the First and Second Applicants the Respondent pay a penalty of $4,400. (2) That the penalty ordered to be paid under order (1) above be paid by the Respondent to the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, by 8 January 2011. What this extract from Kelly means is that the size of a business does not affect the obligation to comply with the FW Act . It nevertheless is appropriate to take into account the contravener's size and financial resources, including their capacity to pay, when independently determining the quantum of any penalty, [45] as was explained by the Federal Court in Dogma Enterprises : The size of the business enterprise involved has led to some debate between the parties. It is clear enough that this is a suburban store of modest proportions in overall terms. However, it is a significant business enterprise and the reality is that many potential breaches of awards will take place by small enterprises. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the size of the undertaking is relevant, because the nature of a penalty, being by way of deterrent, needs to take account of the amount which would be such as to deter the enterprise itself from re-offending. It must be big enough to cause the enterprise not to risk the eventuality of a penalty by breaching awards and then buying their way out. However, as has been put, we are not, here, talking about BHP Billiton or David Jones. [46] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 718" id="cs6">In Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd (supra) per Gray J at [27] and Graham J at [55] and [78] their Honours indicated that the Court should apply an "instinctive synthesis" in making this assessment. The factors relevant to the imposition of a penalty under the WR Act have been summarised in the frequently quoted decision of Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd t/as Pangaea Restaurants and Bars [2007] FMCA 7 per Mowbray FM which was subsequently adopted in Kelly v Fitzpatrick (supra) per Tracey J at [14]. It is acknowledged that while the summary in Pangaea is a convenient checklist, it does not prescribe or restrict the matters which may be taken into account in the exercise of the Court's discretion: Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 per Gyles at [11]; Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith (supra) per Buchannan J at [91]. Penalty in respect of Third Respondent
 Counsel for the applicant, in his written submissions, indicate that he relies upon the following material in respect to penalty: Affidavit of Bianca Sorrenti dated 9 September 2009 at paras.9, 10, 17, 18; Affidavits of Wayne Brogan dated 10 September 2009 at paras.4, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20; Affidavit of Third Respondent dated 8 April 2010; Minutes of Chilis management meeting held on 14 January 2008, 4 February 2008 and 10 April 2008; and Mr Selinger, in his written submissions, submits that Mr Reynolds' breaches are able to be categorised as follows: Failure to pay Ms Sorrenti accrued and untaken annual leave (cl.28(g) Sorrenti AWA) (maximum penalty $6,600.00); Failure to pay Mr Brogan and untaken annual leave (cl.28(g) Brogan AWA) (maximum penalty $6,600.00).
In respect of these breaches, it was submitted that they should be properly characterised as two distinct breaches arising out of two separate courses of conduct as there are a number of factors which indicate that the breaches arose in that way.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 384" id="cs7">Both counsel framed their submissions on penalty by reference to headings taken from the well-known list of sentencing considerations suggested in this area by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 , and summarised by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 ; (2007) 166 IR 14 at [14] . As I have noted in previous cases, a list of considerations can guide, but is not a substitute for "the unrestrained statutory discretion" (cf. Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). Ultimately, I must arrive at an amount within the range of penalties provided in the legislation which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed and also takes into account other sentencing considerations including deterrence (cf. Graham J in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 at [54] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 204" id="cs8">the size of the prescribed penalty, and any recent increases to that prescription; and the totality principle. This is not an exhaustive list of considerations that the Court may take into account. [5] Nature and extent of the conduct which led to the contravention
 The nature of the conduct was a failure by the respondents to keep records as prescribed by the WR Regulations and a failure to produce records the subject of a written request dated 23 February 2009 by the applicant, [6] in relation to one employee. [7] The Request was to make available the following records in relation to the Employee: all wage and time records relating to the Employee from 1 July 2008 to the termination date of 12 August 2008; annual leave records for the full period of employment (being the period from and including 15 May 2006 to 12 August 2008); any record containing the date of commencement of employment; and any record containing evidence of the date of termination of employment. The failure to produce these records must be considered in the context of the reason for the requirement to produce records, as set out below. [8] On 25 February 2009, Industrial Roadpavers provided the Workplace Inspector [9] with fortnightly payroll advices in respect of the Employee between 26 June 2008 and 6 August 2008. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 49" id="cs9">This is not an exhaustive list of considerations that the Court may take into account. [11] Nature, extent and circumstances of the conduct which led to the contraventions (including deliberate defiance or disregard of the WR Act)
  Williams v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd (No.3) [2010] FMCA 49 (29 January 2010)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Federal Magistrates Court of Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Federal Magistrates Court of Australia  2010  [2010] FMCA 49

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] Williams v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd (No.3) [2010] FMCA 49 (29 January 2010)
Last Updated: 11 May 2010

 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 WILLIAMS v MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD (No.3) [2010] FMCA 49
 INDUSTRIAL LAW --- Civil penalty proceedings --- penalty --- factors for consideration --- to whom penalty to be paid. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s.4AA
 Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), s.77(3)
 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.86 - 94
 Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005
 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.3(c)  (f), 4 (1), 173 , 227 , 232 , 235 (2), 318 (1) and (2), 661 , 718 (1) and (2), 719 (1), (2) and (4), 722 , 723 , 824 , 841 (b)
 Workplace Relations Regulations 2006 (Cth), Chapter 2, reg. 14.5(1)

 ACCC v IPM Operation and Maintenance Loy Yang Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2007] FCA 11
 Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith (2008) 165 FCR 560 ; [2008] FCAFC 8
 Balding v Ten Talents Pty Ltd  Anor (2007) 162 IR 17 ; [2007] FMCA 145
 Carr v CEPU  Anor [2007] FMCA 1526
 Cotis v Pow Juice Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 140
 Fair Work Ombusdman v Bundy Market Meats Pty Ltd  Anor [2009] FMCA 994
 Fair Work Ombudsman v Primrose Development Pty Ltd  Anor (2009) 183 IR 447 ; [2009] FMCA 632
 Fair Work Ombudsman v The Palcon Group Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 974
 Gibbs v City of Altona [1992] FCA 374 ; [1992] FCA 374 ; (1992) 37 FCR 216
 Hanssen Pty Ltd v Jones (2009) 179 IR 57 ; [2009] FCA 192
 Jones v Hanssen [2008] FMCA 291
 Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 IR 14 ; [2007] FCA 1080
 Klousia v TKM Investments Pty Ltd  Anor [2009] FMCA 208
 Leighton Contractors v CFMEU (2006) 164 IR 375 ; [2006] WASC 317
 Olsen v Sterling Crown Pty Ltd (2008) 177 IR 337 ; [2008] FMCA 1392
 Ponzio v BP Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543 ; [2007] FCAFC 65
 Rajagopalan v BM Sydney Building Materials Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 1412
 Secretary, Department of Health  Ageing v Pagasa Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1545
 Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union (No. 2) (2001) 110 IR 372 ; [2001] FCA 672
 Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550
 Williams v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd (2009) 231 FLR 59 ; (2009) 182 IR 104 ; [2009] FMCA 511
 Williams v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2009] FMCA 763
 Workplace Ombudsman v Golden Maple Pty Ltd (2009) 186 IR 211 ; [2009] FMCA 664
 Workplace Ombudsman v KSN Engineering Pty Ltd (2009) 185 IR 316 ; [2009] FMCA 538
 Applicant: ADRIAN CLIFFORD WILLIAMS
 Respondent: MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD
 File Number: PEG 83 of 2008
 Judgment of: Lucev FM
 Hearing date: 30 November 2009
 Date of Last Submission: 30 November 2009
 Delivered at: Perth
 Delivered on: 29 January 2010
 REPRESENTATION
 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D H Schapper
 Solicitors for the Applicant: Derek Schapper
 Counsel for the Respondent: Mr T H F Casperz and Ms R Harding
 Solicitors for the Respondent: Jackson McDonald
 ORDERS

 (1) The respondent pay a pecuniary penalty of $14,850.00 for contravention of sections 232 and 235 (2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). (2) The penalty imposed by Order (1) above to be paid by the respondent to the applicant on or before 26 February 2010. (3) The respondent pay to the applicant interest pursuant to sections 722 and 723 of the WR Act on the sum of $8,067.69 ordered to be paid to the applicant by the respondent by this Court on 14 August 2009 in the amount of $1,187.56 on or before 26 February 2010.
 FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
 COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
 PERTH
 PEG 83 of 2008
 ADRIAN CLIFFORD WILLIAMS
Applicant

And

 MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD
Respondent

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 Introduction
 The respondent, Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd [1] employed the applicant, Mr Williams to work at the Argyle Diamond mine site [2] from 9 November 2006 to 16 December 2007. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1255" id="cs10">Hence it is necessary to determine an appropriate penalty in respect of each course of conduct or contravention having regard to all of the circumstances of the case before considering the application of the totality principle to the aggregate penalty. The factors relevant to the imposition of penalties under the Act have been considered in a number of cases. In Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Limited [2007] FMCA 7 Mowbray FM referred to a " non-exhaustive " range of considerations. This list was adopted by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick . Such a list does not prescribe or restrict the matters which may be taken into account in the exercise of the court's discretion (see Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] and Australian Ophthalmic Supplies at [91] per Buchanan J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1132" id="cs11">This is not an exhaustive list of considerations that the Court may take into account. [45] Nature and extent of the conduct which led to the contraventions
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1003" id="cs12">It is often convenient to address penalty by reference to a list of considerations, such as those identified by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 and summarised by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 ; (2007) 166 IR 14 at [14] . A list of considerations can guide the identification of the appropriate penalties, but is not a substitute for "the unrestrained statutory discretion" (cf. Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). Ultimately, I must arrive at an amount within the range of penalties provided in the legislation which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed (cf. Graham J in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 at [54] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VMC 14" id="cs13"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 664" id="cs14">The considerations identified above are not exclusive. [11] Circumstances of the conduct
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VMC 10" id="cs15"/>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 38" id="cs16">This summary was adopted by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick (2007) 166 IR 14 ; [2007] FCA 1080 , [14]. While the summary is a convenient checklist, it does not prescribe or restrict the matters which may be taken into account in the exercise of the Court's discretion: Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 , [11]; Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 ; (2008) 165 FCR 560 [91] of Buchanan J and ; [2008] FCAFC 8 ; (2008) 246 ALR 35 . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VMC 10" id="cs17"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1050" id="cs18">Counsel for Mr Armstrong made submissions on penalty by reference to the list of considerations identified by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 , and summarised by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 ; (2007) 166 IR 14 at [14] . I accept his submissions, and do not propose to repeat all the points he makes, nor provide discussion under each of those heading. The list of considerations can guide, but is not a substitute for "the unrestrained statutory discretion" (cf. Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). Ultimately, I must arrive at an amount within the range of penalties provided in the legislation which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed (cf. Graham J in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 at [54]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1105" id="cs19">Although I must explain the considerations which influence my assessment, it has been recognised that sentencing is an 'instinctive synthesis' of relevant considerations. Helpful lists of considerations have been adopted in previous cases, and I am entitled to draw from these, without treating them as a substitute for "the unrestrained statutory discretion" (cf. Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). 4. I propose to discuss what I regard as significant considerations in the present case under headings which reflect the matters listed by Branson J in Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Finance Sector Union of Australia [2007] FCAFC 18 ; [2007] FCAFC 18 ; (2007) 157 FCR 329 at [181] and the longer list of considerations which was distilled by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 7 , as summarised by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 ; (2007) 166 IR 14 at [14] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 1028" id="cs20">On the material before the Court and in light of the fact that the breaches are admitted, it is not possible to determine with accuracy the precise extent to which there were breaches of each term of the award before the maximum was raised. Rather than proceed on the basis that the maximum penalty should be a specified figure somewhere between the amounts before and after the increase (as Gyles J did in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 where the increase in the maximum rate occurred approximately half way through the period in issue) I consider it appropriate to have regard to this issue as a factor relevant to the exercise of my discretion. The admitted breaches
  As acknowledged for the applicant, it is appropriate in determining the penalties to have regard to the " non-exhaustive " range of considerations identified by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Limited [2007] FMCA 7 and adopted by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick . However this list of matters does not prescribe or restrict the matters which may be taken into account in the exercise of the court's discretion (see Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] and Australian Ophthalmic Supplies at [91] per Buchanan J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 920" id="cs21">The ultimate object of an assessment of penalty is to arrive at an amount within the range of penalties provided in the legislation which is proportionate to the gravity of the offence committed (cf. Graham J in Australian Ophthalmic Supplies Pty Ltd v McAlary-Smith [2008] FCAFC 8 at [54] ). Although I must explain the considerations which influence my assessment, it has been recognised that sentencing is an 'instinctive synthesis' of relevant considerations. Helpful lists of considerations have been adopted in previous cases, and I am entitled to draw from these, without treating them as a substitute for "the unrestrained statutory discretion" (cf. Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 213" id="cs22">As his Honour implied, such matters can only be a guide to the exercise of "the unrestrained statutory discretion": Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1550 per Gyles J at [11]. The nature and extent of the conduct
 Generally
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 212" id="cs23">As his Honour implied, such matters can only be a guide to the exercise of "the unrestrained statutory discretion": Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1550 per Gyles J at [11]. The nature and extent of the conduct
 Generally
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 101" id="cs24">I do not consider that this element, of itself, should result in its breaches being regarded more seriously than non-compliance with the same award conditions by a smaller or more financially vulnerable enterprise (but compare Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [15] ). There are, however, elements in the circumstances of the breaches relating to the respondent's business structure and position in the industry, which require me to treat the breaches as serious and inexcusable, and which support the imposition of a substantial penalty. I shall point to these below. Whether or not the breaches were deliberate
  I shall determine the appropriate penalties for the respondent's admitted breaches, after addressing the list of considerations which was distilled by Mowbray FM in Mason v Harrington Corporation Pty Ltd (supra), as summarised by Tracey J in Kelly v Fitzpatrick (supra) at [14]. This may guide, but not be treated as a substitute for, "the unrestrained statutory discretion" (cf. Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 at [11] ). The nature and extent of the conduct leading to the breaches
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 79" id="cs25">The parties accepted that these considerations should guide the exercise of the Court's discretion in these proceedings and made submissions as to penalty on that basis. Before turning to consider those submissions
I note the comments made by Gyles J in Sharpe v Dogma Enterprises Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1550 (" Sharpe ") at [11] that: "...although it is convenient to refer to the headings, the discretion as to the imposition of a penalty is quite unrestrained by the statute. There are no mandatory matters to be taken into account. I would not agree to substituting a judge's checklist for the unrestrained statutory discretion. " The nature and extent of the conduct
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">WORKPLACE RELATIONS AMENDMENT (WORK CHOICES) ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1005">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1005">application for further discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1005">application granted in respect of categories of documents relevant to alleged pre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1005">and post-cartel period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1005">documents necessary to enable expert witness to construct economic model</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1005">application denied in respect of documents filed in previous federal court proceeding to which respondents were parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 60">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 60">form of orders for further discovery of documents and computer codes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 60">level of discovery which should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">request by solicitor to third party to copy documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">copies made by third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">privilege of copy documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">purpose of creation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">whether purpose of solicitor the relevant purpose when determining privilege. discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">implied undertaking not to disclose discovered documents for another purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">release from implied undertaking. discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">discovery of documents provided by third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">confidentiality of and prejudice to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">regime for disclosure. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 554">leave to issue subpoena.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1005" id="cs0">The background to the claim for the first six categories is to be found in two judgments of Tamberlin J, Jarra Creek Central Packaging Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd [2007] FCA 1559 ; Jarra Creek Central Packaging Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited [2009] FCA 60. Tamberlin J was the docket judge for the matter before he reached the age of Constitutional retirement on 31 March 2009. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 60" id="cs1">In substance, the dispute between the parties concerns the appropriate particularity and detail at which discovery should be made. I have made previous orders for discovery in this matter on 19 November 2007: see Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed v Amcor Limited (2007) FCA 1559 , which sets out the general background. The Visy respondents contend that nothing material has changed since those orders and that there is no need for further orders of discovery because the present application seeks documents that were sought but not ordered to be produced on the previous application. The Visy respondents also say that, although after the making of the previous orders the applicant amended its pleading, in respect of the essential allegation for discovery purposes, there has been no significant change. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 554" id="cs2">2 Aspects of the background to this matter have been briefly discussed in my previous judgments: see Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited [2006] FCA 1802 ; Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Ltd [2007] FCA 1559 ; and Jarra Creek Central Packing Shed Pty Ltd v Amcor Limited [2008] FCA 391. I set out below in short compass some additional background information relevant to this application.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">re commonwealth of australia  anor; ex parte marks  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">factors to be considered.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">constitutional relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether full bench of australian industrial relations commission made a jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">role of full bench on appeal.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether s 347 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 67">whether proceedings commenced "vexatiously or without reasonable cause".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">re refugee review tribunal; ex parte aala  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">failure to afford procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">prosecutor denied opportunity to be heard on matters affecting credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prosecutor denied possibility of a successful outcome.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">nature of constitutional writ of prohibition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">availability of writ of prohibition for failure to accord procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether prohibition available as of right or by discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">whether application should be rejected due to delay.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">construction of constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">meaning to be given to words in s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2000] HCA 57">relevance of meaning at time of commencement of constitution .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2006] FMCA 962">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2006] FMCA 962">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2006] FMCA 962">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2006] FMCA 962">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2006] FMCA 962">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2006] FMCA 962" id="cs0">Mr Potts submits that the unwarrantable delay of more than a year in commencing these proceedings is sufficient to justify the Court denying relief in the exercise of its discretion: R v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration; Ex parte Ozone Theatres (Aust) Ltd [1949] HCA 33 ; (1949) 78 CLR 389 at 400; SZDSJ v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 160 at [14] --- [17]; SZDTN v Minister for Immigration [2005] FMCA 1293 at [45] --- [60] (upheld on appeal SZDTN v Minister for Immigration [2006] FCA 175 at [16] ); SZGPZ v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 194 at [75] --- [77]; and SZGTA v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 648 at [61] --- [67].</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l1">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441 Sittings of the Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">when summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) may be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether order for summary dismissal under s 31a is interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether leave to appeal should be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">whether a further opportunity to amend a further amended statement of claim should be allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">consideration of interests of justice  held: leave to appeal necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 117">application for leave dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether primary judge correct to dismiss application on grounds that proceedings had no reasonable prospects of success and disclosed no cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">circumstances where self-represented litigant failed to comply with court directions in relation to filing of affidavit outlining essential factual elements of claim, but had outlined his claim orally to court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether applicant had articulated any arguable claim for relief or cause of action  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether order made by primary judge, under s 31a(2) federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), that whole claim against one of a number of parties had no reasonable prospects of success, interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">circumstances where order made by primary judge did not dispose of whole of proceedings practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">discretionary power of court to receive further evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether different result would have occurred if evidence was available at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether in interests of justice to accept further evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 6">whether further evidence establishes reasonable prospect of succeeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether derivation by purchaser of income in the sum of that liability in circumstances of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether gain constituted income according to ordinary concepts or whether amount had been received by way of insurance or indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether appeal to the federal court from the administrative appeals tribunal an appeal on "question of law"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether s. 44 of the administrative appeals tribunal act 1977 confers jurisdiction with respect to a "matter"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 612">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 612">interlocutory decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 612">application for extension of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 612">no satisfactory explanation for delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 612">no prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 612">application dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 612" id="cs0">Although each case must necessarily depend upon its own facts and circumstances, an application for an extension of time and leave to appeal has been refused in other like applications seeking to appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal: e.g., Budd v Secretary, Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations [2009] FCA 345 ; Budd v Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2009] FCA 1138. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l4">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l5">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 - SECT 1061JH Qualification--extreme circumstances forcing departure from home</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] AATA 1068">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] AATA 1068">section 7 and section 24 exemptions determined as a preliminary point</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] AATA 1068">whether provision of documents sought by applicant would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] AATA 1068">whether documents sought are exempt from disclosure due to being classified as 'program material' or 'datacasting content'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] AATA 1068">held that both exemptions have not been made out.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">broadcast of a program by the australian broadcasting corporation concerning law students working at kingsford legal centre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">program discussed the applicant's extradition case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">allegation that broadcast was misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">allegation that broadcast was breach of privacy act 1988 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">allegations of defamation and breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">broadcast exempt from operation of s 52 of trade practices act 1974 (cth) under s 65a of that act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">acts done by a media organisation in the course of journalism are exempt from the privacy act under ss 7(1)(ee) and 7b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">no jurisdiction under any federal act to hear the matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">no accrued jurisdiction to hear the allegations of defamation and breach of confidence  security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">applicant a citizen of the united states of america ("usa")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">applicant in prison pending extradition to the usa to face trial for murder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">person held in gaol against their will is not ordinarily resident in that country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">applicant not ordinarily resident in australia despite desire to remain</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">applicant has virtually no assets in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">security for costs would have shut down applicant's ability to prosecute his case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 661">security for costs would not have been ordered had there been jurisdiction to hear his application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">project blue sky inc  ors v australian broadcasting authority  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">reconciliation of conflicting provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">intention of legislature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">presumption that provisions intended to achieve consistent goals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">leading and subordinate provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">grammatical meaning and legal meaning.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">acts done in breach of a condition regulating a statutory power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">mandatory and directory provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">purpose-based test.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">standard prescribing australian content requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether inconsistent with legislative requirement that functions be performed consistently with australia's international obligations.  media law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">regulation of programming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australian broadcasting authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">power to make standards that "relate to ... the australian content of programs"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">whether restricted to standards conferring preferential treatment.  trade law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[1998] HCA 28">australia new zealand closer economic relations trade agreement.  broadcasting services act 1992 (cth), ss 3 , 122 , 158, 160.  broadcasting services (transitional provisions and consequential amendments) act 1992 (cth), s 21.  tasker v fullwood [1978] 1 nswlr 20 at 23-24 applied.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 321">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 321">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 321">decision of delegate of secretary of department of foreign affairs and trade not to confirm probationary appointment of respondent to australian public service</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 321">application by respondent for reasons of delegate for his decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 321">whether respondent entitled to reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 321">whether decision a decision relating to the making of an appointment in the australian public service.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 48">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 48">assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 48">allowance paid to employee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 48">encouragement to study scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 48">payments on completion of approved courses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 48">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), s. 26(e).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">powers of the commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">marriage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">divorce and matrimonial causes, and in relation thereto, parental rights, and the custody and guardianship of infants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">family court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">powers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">proceedings or completed proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">custody of child of a marriage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">application by stranger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">wardship proceedings in state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">application for award of custody</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">wardship jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xxi) , (xxii)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 16">family law act 1975 (cth) ss. 3(2) , 4 (1) "matrimonial cause" (c), (f), 8(1), 31(1), 39(1), (5), 40(3), 61(1), 64(1), (7).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 40">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 40">access</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 40">whether csiro exempt from operation of freedom of information act 1982 (cth) in respect of particular documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 40">whether documents requested in respect of its commercial activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 40">(cth) freedom of information act 1982 ss 3(1) , 3 (2), 4 (1), 7 (2), 7 (2aa), 7 (3), 7 (4), 11 (1), 43a, div 1 of pt ii of schedule 2.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1685">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1685">whether australia post exempt from operation of freedom of information act 1982 in relation to mail contractor management manual</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1685">whether manual in respect of its commercial activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1685">decision affirmed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">freedom of information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">whether csiro exempt from operation of freedom of information act 1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">whether documents required are in request of its commercial activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">whether documents are in relation to documents in respect of its commercial activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">respondent exempt from operation of freedom of information act 1982 in relation to documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2007] AATA 1569">further consideration adjourned.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 40" id="cs0">18 There was, according to the Tribunal, a difference between Bennett J's analysis in Australian Broadcasting Corporation v The University of Technology, Sydney [2006] FCA 964 ; (2006) 154 FCR 209 ( ABC ) and Greenwood J's approach in Australian Postal Corporation v Johnston [2007] FCA 386 ; (2007) 94 ALD 586 ( Australia Post ). The Tribunal considered that its preferred construction was consistent with Australia Post and not with ABC , although the differences in approach would not have led to different outcomes in the current case. In the event this latter conclusion was incorrect, the Tribunal went on at the end of its reasons to consider "the matter from both points of view".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1685" id="cs1"/>
<sentence from="[2007] AATA 1569" id="cs2">" [59]

82. " [54]

78. " [53] The entry for each of those other agencies is in terms of documents in respect of a particular activity. " [57]

80. " [63]

86. " [58]

81. " [56]

In relation to the ABC and SBS, she read them as:

" ' in relation to the documents ' (s 7(2)) ' in relation to its program material (the Schedule)'. " [55]

79. " [52]

77. " [62]

In relation to the ABC and SBS, the exemption is:

" ' in relation to the documents ' (s 7(2)) ' in relation to its program material (the Schedule)'.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BROADCASTING SERVICES ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l1">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 </title>
<title id="l2">FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 1982 - SECT 7 Exemption of certain persons and bodies</title>
<title id="l3">PRIVACY ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">leave to appeal from interlocutory orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">tests to be applied when granting leave from interlocutory decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">discretion to grant leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">failure to provide adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">duty to give reasons practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">security for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">misapplication of principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 661">whether principles of impecuniosity of a plaintiff who is a natural person applies to corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">obligation to give written reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">whether transcript sufficient to constitute written reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1500">power to order that no further application be accepted for filing except with the leave of the court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">appeal from decision of federal magistrate summarily dismissing application claiming unlawful discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">principles relating to summary dismissal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">where application said to lack merit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">application need only disclose a reasonable cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">court should not consider whether the application will ultimately succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">approach where litigant unrepresented. practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">philosophy underlying proceedings in federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">absence of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 559">function of pleadings generally.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 735">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 735">failure by federal magistrates court to provide adequate reasons for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 735">objective and purpose of providing reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 735">content of adequate reasons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 735">appellants left with a real sense of grievance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1141">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1141">discrimination in employment on the grounds of marital status and age</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1141">sexual harassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1141">interlocutory dismissal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1141">no reasonable prospects of success.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 735" id="cs0">21 The Respondent Minister in the present appeal accepted that the Federal Magistrate was under an obligation to provide reasons for his decision. It is thus an error of law for a Federal Magistrate to fail to give reasons for dismissing an application to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal: SZDCJ v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1500 at [16] per Jacobson J. Albeit in a different statutory context, it has also been recognised that a Federal Magistrate should give sufficient reasons for reaching a conclusion that an application should be summarily dismissed: Penhall-Jones v State of New South Wales [2006] FCA 934 at [25] . Tamberlin J there said that the reasons:
 ... do not have to be elaborate or excessively detailed, but the touchstone is that the reasons must indicate to the parties why the decision was made in order to allow them to exercise such rights as may be available in respect of that decision ... </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1141" id="cs1">Further in Penhall-Jones v State of New South Wales [2006] FCA 934 , the Federal Court cautioned against an assessment on a summary dismissal application of evidence that would be presented on a trial of a claim but also cautioned that, in dealing with summary dismissal, the Court must give sufficient reasons for the dismissal so that the dismissal is properly understood by the parties.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l1">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 5 Direct disability discrimination</title>
<title id="l2">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 6 Indirect disability discrimination</title>
<title id="l3">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 35 Harassment in employment</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l5">HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l6">HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 No. 125 of 1986 - SECT 46 Reports to be tabled in Parliament</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
<title id="l8">HUMAN RIGHTS AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION ACT 1986 - SECT 46PO Application to court if complaint is terminated</title>
</legistitles>
</case>