Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">whether "ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of building work" in paras (b) and (c) of the definition of "building industrial action" in s 36(1) of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth) covered only action of employees in respect of their work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">whether construed by reference to the meaning of "industrial action" in the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">"building industrial action" not limited to action of employees in respect of their work  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">no case to answer submission on parts of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">whether discretion should be exercised to depart from general rule requiring party to elect not to call further evidence prior to ruling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">justice and convenience considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">no election required on statutory construction argument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">election required before ruling on remaining parts of no case to answer submission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 66">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 66">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 66">coercion.  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 66">civil penalty proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 66">false or misleading statements about membership.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">appeal from federal magistrates court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">requirements under section 789 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">meaning of intent to coerce</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">liability of state union branches under part 16 of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">findings of fact based on credibility assessment by court at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">review of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">appellable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 13">approach to be taken by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether union or employer breached civil remedy provisions of the fair work act 2009 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether action of employees constituted industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">where employees directed to perform work in a particular manner on certain shifts but continued to work as they had done in the past</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">part of wages of employees withheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employer obliged under s.474 of the fair work act not to make payment to employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employer breached terms of transitional instruments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employee organisation asked employer to make a payment to an employee that would be a contravention of s.474</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 688">whether employee organisation knowingly or recklessly made a misrepresentation about the employer's obligation to engage in industrial action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">employees of construction sub-contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">failure to return to work after union meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">failure to attend for work the following day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether motivated by purpose of advancing industrial objectives of unions, of supporting or advancing claims against employer or of disrupting performance of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether authorised by officers of unions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether union officers counselled or procured failure to work, or were knowingly concerned in or party to failure to work.  industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">employees of construction sub-contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">union organiser procuring vote at meeting of employees in favour of placing a ban on work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether amounted to engagement by organiser in ban or limitation on performance of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">if ban imposed by employees, whether counselled and procured by organiser.  industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">picketing and protesting at construction site and at offices of contractor and sub-contractor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether amounted to action taken or organised with intent to coerce contractor to employ persons previously dismissed by another sub-contractor or to make industrial agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether contractor's choice sought to be negated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether illegitimate means employed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">extent of involvement of union organisers in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether action authorised, or agreed or consented to, by organisers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether organisers counselled or procured, or were knowingly involved in, action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">liability of unions.  penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">respondents accepting applicant's case including level of penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">whether penalties within permissible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">citing from="[2010] FCA 754">role of court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 48">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 48">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 48">contraventions of ss 38 and 43 of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth) by first and third respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 48">contraventions admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 48">determination of penalties to be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">contraventions of s 43 of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">amount of penalties to be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">nature and extent of unlawful conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">consequences of contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">previous similar unlawful conduct, including prior contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevance of previous contravention by another autonomous division of the union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">contraventions had common purpose but distinct in time, place and coercion exerted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">relevance of, and weight to be given to, size and financial position and non-profit-making objective of union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">general and specific deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">totality principle   costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">applicant partially successful in his pleaded case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">respondents filed further amended defence on first day of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">appropriate costs order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">applicant entitled to part of his costs to reflect measure of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 1040">respondents to pay applicant's costs thrown away by reason of amendment on party-party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">contravention of freedom of association protections</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">union organiser made threats to concreting subcontractor at significant building project</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">assessment of disputed evidence of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">intent to coerce subcontractor and his workers to become members of union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">conduct to which part 16 applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">contravention by organiser and unions established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 613">further hearing directed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 548">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 548">contraventions of anti-coercion provisions of legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 548">penalties to be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 548">inherent seriousness of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 548">whether aggravating or mitigatory circumstances existed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 548">relevance of prior contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 548">whether prior contraventions of another statute, or by officials of another branch or division of corporate respondent, or in relation to which no finding of contravention had been made before the conduct relevant to the instant case, should be taken into account.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 66" id="cs0">In respect of s.789 of the WR Act proof of the requisite intent is necessary. [8] The authorities with respect to the phrase " with intent to coerce " in s.789 of the WR Act make it clear that: it is necessary that a threat of action involving an intention to coerce must have the capacity for compulsion on its recipient; the capacity for compulsion on its recipient must enable the Court to conclude that it was intended that pressure be exerted which, in a practical sense, was such as to negate choice; the pressure must involve conduct that is unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable; the maker of the threats must have actual knowledge of the circumstances that make the conduct coercive; and where the threats or conduct have several purposes or objectives, the proscribed intent or reason must be a substantial or operative intention in the making of the threats or the carrying out of the conduct. [9] False or misleading representation
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 13" id="cs1">The meaning of the phrase "intent to coerce" in this statutory setting has become settled (see Finance Sector Union of Australia v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2000] FCA 1468 ; (2000) 106 FCR 16 per Gyles J at [18]-[38]; National Union of Workers v Qenos Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 178 ; (2001) 108 FCR 90 per Weinberg J at [128]; Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2001] FCA 456 ; (2001) 109 FCR 378 ( "Seven Network" ) per Merkel J at [38]-[43]; Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 223 ( "Williams" ) per Jessup J at [105]). The relevant principles were distilled by Merkel J in Seven Network in the following terms (at [41]):

 First, it needs to be shown that it was intended that pressure be exerted which, in a practical sense, will negate choice. Second, the exertion of the pressure must involve conduct that is unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 688" id="cs2">While the conduct of the employees might not amount to a " ban ", as it did not involve a total prohibition of the work in question (see NMHG Distribution Pty Ltd t/as Yale Asia Pacific v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union and Others (2000) 104 IR 158 at 162), the approach taken to the meaning of the words " limitation or restriction " by the Federal Court in Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2009) 179 IR 441 ; [2009] FCA 223 is in point. In that case, in considering the meaning of the concept " ban, limitation or restriction " in s.36(1) of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) (which is, relevantly, in identical terms to s.19(1)(b) of the FWA) Jessup J stated the following (at [90]): ... In NMHG Distribution Pty Ltd (t/as Yale Asia Pacific) v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (2000) 104 IR 158 , a Full Bench of the Commission said the following of the word "ban" in a statutory context indistinguishable from that with which I am presently concerned (at [11]): The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary includes the following meaning for the word "ban": "a formal or authoritative prohibition (on or against something)".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 754" id="cs3">The application of ss 43 and 44 of the BCII Act to the circumstances of the meeting of workers on 13 March 2009 is more straightforward. I accept that Mr Stephenson's whole program in relevant respects (including his telephone conversation with Mr McElligot on 12 March) amounted to "action" within the meaning of these sections. His obvious intent was to procure the cessation of the only productive work which was then being performed on the bridge. Although he gave Mr McElligot a choice to comply with his program (a choice which was, as it happens, rejected in the telephone conversation), and although he gave the workers a choice of sorts at the meeting on 13 March, Mr Stephenson had the intent of procuring the cessation of work, and the effect of his success in that regard would have been to add to the pressure on John Holland to comply with the CFMEU's demands, and in that sense to negate choice. In this respect I would take the same approach to the matter as I did in Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 223 ; (2009) 179 IR 441 , 477-478 [106]. The means employed were, on any view, illegitimate. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 48" id="cs4">The prior contraventions by Mr Mates of the BCII Act are contraventions of s 43 of the BCII Act arising out of conduct on: 15, 17 and 21 February 2006; Cahill v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 3) [2009] FCA 52 (contraventions recorded 5 February 2009); and 31 July 2006; Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 223 (contraventions recorded 13 March 2009). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1040" id="cs5">Further, on 13 March 2009, in Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 223 , Jessup J found that, on 31 July 2006, Mr Mates and the Union had committed two breaches of s 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act by organising a stoppage of work on a building site and threatening to organise a further stoppage unless the employer engaged a labourer. On 28 May 2009, Jessup J dealt with the matter of penalties: see Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (No 2) [2009] FCA 548. (With the consent of the applicant, the respondents advised me that this last-mentioned judgment was the subject of an appeal. )  Jessup J's judgment in Williams [2009] FCA 223 was delivered on 13 March 2009, and involved findings that, on 31 July 2006, Mr Mates and the Union had each committed two breaches of s 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act . Whilst these breaches cannot be treated as prior contraventions, they can be taken into account in imposing penalties in this case. I note, of course, that they involve judicial findings made earlier this year in respect of conduct five months after 15 February 2006. These considerations affect the weight to be given Williams in imposing penalties here.  Until Jessup J's decision in Williams [2009] FCA 223 , Mr Mates had not been found to have contravened s 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act or any other industrial legislation. The applicant referred to Duffy v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2008] FCA 1804 ; (2008) 178 IR 47 , in which, on 28 November 2008, Marshall J found that, in October 2005, the Union had contravened s 38 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act . Although the report of the case indicates that Mr Mates was involved in the events resulting in the contravention finding against the Union, there was no finding of contravention against Mr Mates. Further, for present purposes, I accept that s 38 involves consideration of facts of a different kind to that involved in a s 43 contravention.  Much the same must also be said of Williams [2009] FCA 223 and Williams (No 2) [2009] FCA 548. Consideration of them is helpful, but ultimately the factors relevant to the imposition of penalties differ. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 613" id="cs6">Both counsel referred me to numerous authorities in the Federal Court which have considered similarly worded provisions of this Act and its predecessor legislation. In particular, they both submitted that the previous approach to prohibitions on threats of action "with intent to coerce" a defined outcome, should be applied by me. These authorities were recently applied by Jessup J in Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining  Energy Union [2009] FCA 223 , (2009) 179 IR 441 , and I do not consider it necessary for me to trace their preceding development. In particular, I accept that it is necessary that a threat of action involving an intent to coercion must have a capacity for compulsion on its recipient, so that it can be concluded that "it was intended that pressure be exerted which, in a practical sense, will negate choice" . It is also necessary that the pressure "must involve conduct that is unlawful, illegitimate or unconscionable" , and that the maker of the threats "had actual knowledge of the circumstances that made [his] conduct coercive" in that sense (see Merkel J in Seven Network (Operations) Ltd v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing  Allied Services Union of Australia [2001] FCA 456 ; (2001) 109 FCR 378 at [41] - [43], cited in Williams (supra) at [105]). I also accept that if the threats had several purposes or objectives, the proscribed intent or reason must be "a substantial or operative" intention in the making of the threats (cf. Williams (supra) at [103]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 548" id="cs7">On 13 March 2009, I made findings that the respondents had each contravened s 43 of the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act 2005 (Cth) ("the BCII") in two respects: Williams v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2009] FCA 223. I have now heard the parties on the final orders which should be made, and on the question of costs. These reasons deal with those matters. They should be read together with my reasons of 13 March 2009. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 36 Definitions</title>
<title id="l2">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 37 Definition of unlawful industrial action</title>
<title id="l3">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 38 Unlawful industrial action prohibited</title>
<title id="l4">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 43 Coercion in relation to engagement etc. of building employees and building contractors</title>
<title id="l5">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 48 Definitions</title>
<title id="l6">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 49 Penalties etc. for contravention of civil penalty provision</title>
<title id="l7">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 57 Australian Building and Construction Inspectors</title>
<title id="l8">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 69 Building association responsible for conduct of members etc.</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l10">CONCILIATION AND ARBITRATION AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 3) 1977 </title>
<title id="l11">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2004 </title>
<title id="l12">Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 - SECT 21 Duties of employers to employees</title>
<title id="l13">Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 - SECT 111 Power to issue improvement notice</title>
<title id="l14">Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 - SECT 112 Power to issue prohibition notice</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 491">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 491">application to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 491">where application filed after time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice expired.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 491" id="cs0">The solicitor for the respondent submitted that the application should be dismissed on the basis that it was not competent as the requirements of r.3.02 were not met, in accordance with the approach taken by Edmonds J in O'Meara v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 1575 (and see Batterham v Makeig (2010) 7 ABC(NS) 575; [2010] FCA 50). In O'Meara , no affidavit was filed with or accompanying an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice which was filed within the time for compliance with the bankruptcy notice. Edmonds J held that there had been a non-compliance with r.3.02 of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2005 (Cth) (which are, relevantly, in the same form as the Federal Magistrates Court (Bankruptcy) Rules ) because no affidavit was filed with or accompanying the application and, while affidavits were filed subsequently, no affidavits satisfying the requirements of the Rules had been filed before the expiration of the time fixed for compliance with the bankruptcy notice, even though the application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was filed within that time. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 50" id="cs1">The application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was listed before the District Registrar this morning. The parties were agreed that an extension of time to comply with the bankruptcy notice should be granted. However, the District Registrar drew attention to a judgment of Edmonds J delivered on 22 December 2009 ( O'Meara v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2009] FCA 1575 ( "O'Meara" )). In that judgment, Edmonds J referred (at [10]) to the necessity for strict compliance with rule 3.02 of the Federal Court (Bankruptcy) Rules 2005 . That rule requires, in part, that an affidavit accompanying an application to set aside a bankruptcy notice state the date when the bankruptcy notice was served on the applicant. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 41 Bankruptcy notices</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT (BANKRUPTCY) RULES 2005 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">patent for device for players in touch football versions of rugby league or australian rules football</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">removable strips of material to evidence touches</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">whether obvious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">post-grant re-examination by commissioner of patents under ch 9 of patents act 1990 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">appeal to federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">whether appeal rehearing de novo</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">nature of commissioner's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">commissioner can rely on own technical expertise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">us patents alleged to be part of prior art by virtue of s 7(3) of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">skilled person a rugby league or australian rules coach, referee/umpire or administrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">whether such person could be reasonably expected to ascertain us patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">whether need for evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 26">whether commissioner should have determined application for amendment before decision on revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">construction of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">purposive, as against literal, construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">fruit and vegetable juicer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">claim integer of 'a knife or knives having an upwardly directed cutting edge'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">allegedly infringing product having a bluntened plastic blade' not having an upwardly directed cutting edge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">allegedly infringing product achieved main advantage of the invention (side of blade acting as stay or buffer against rotation of fruit or vegetable on rotating grating disc), but not as effectively as if the blade had had upwardly directed cutting edge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">patentee to be held to language of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1893">held : allegedly infringing product lacked essential integer; no infringement.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">whether infringement of patent for a synthetic turf playing surface</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">construction of phrase 'are crimped'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">whether claims fairly based on matter disclosed in the specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">whether appellate court should interfere with findings of primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 270">whether open to primary judge to conclude that the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 220">198 the basis of the primary judge's decision was that there was no s 117 issue to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 220">all relevant admissions had been made. that is, the effect of fresenius' admissions and conduct led gambro to conclude, properly, that there was no suggestion that s 117 would not apply. whether the issue that fresenius sought to raise after delivery of the first decision, and now seeks to reagitate, was factual or legal, gambro's contention was that, had it known that there was such an issue, it would have run a case on authorisation. his honour accepted that contention. it follows that, even if the matters now sought to be raised are questions of law, the fact remains that, had gambro been aware that fresenius intended to raise an issue about the application of s 117, it would have run a different case. the primary judge thought that was a conclusive consideration. we see no error in his approach.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">mechanical combination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">principles of claim construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">evidence on technical and non-technical terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">evidence on working of the embodiments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">relevance of description to construction of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">principles of infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">relevance of purposive construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">catnic</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">improver questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">relevance of protocol questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">it is not infringement to take substantial idea but not essential integers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">meaning of "pith and marrow"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">preferred embodiment not within claim 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">claim not necessarily coexistent with inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">limitation by result</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 788">no infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 90">date of hearing: 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 90">3 march 2005 date of judgment: 23 may 2005"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 344">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 344">invention claimed for a method of detection and treatment of malignant and non-malignant lesions by photochemotherapy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 344">whether patent invalid on grounds of obviousness, lack of novelty, lack of sufficiency and best method, lack of definition or lack of fair basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 344">whether the patent is infringed in substance by a variant that does not have a material effect on the way the invention works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 344">consideration of the principles to be applied in determining a claim of infringement in substance when no claim is infringed on a textual approach to construction of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">lockwood security products pty ltd v doric products pty ltd  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">fair basing of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">patent for a door lock</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">specification included a consistory clause and described a preferred embodiment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">central claim essentially repeated consistory clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether claim was "fairly based" on the matter described in the specification within s 40(3) of the patents act 1990 (cth) or travelled beyond it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether test of fair basing involves consideration of "merit", "inventive step", "technical contribution to the art" or general "fairness"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 58">whether grounds of invalidity under patents act must be kept distinct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">aktiebolaget hssle v alphapharm pty limited  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">obviousness or lack of inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">patent for an oral pharmaceutical preparation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether invention obvious and did not involve an inventive step having regard to what was known or used in australia on or before priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">combination of integers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">preparation arrived at by group of pharmaceutical chemists after period of experimental research</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether hypothetical non-inventive worker in the field would have been led directly as a matter of course to pursue one avenue in expectation that it might well produce claimed invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">relevance of publications discoverable by "routine literature search" but not found to have been part of the common general knowledge in australia at the priority date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether invention obvious if it was apparent to a non-inventive skilled worker that it would be "worthwhile to try" each of the integers that was ultimately successfully used</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">relevance of attempts to replicate the process of invention by a skilled person aware of the desired result</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether attempts futile.  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">whether decision of primary judge in respect of obviousness affected by legal error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 59">where conclusions of primary judge affirmed by full court of the federal court.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">kimberly-clark australia pty ltd v arico trading international pty ltd  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether invention sufficiently described</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether complete specification includes claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 8">whether sufficiency determined by reference to skilled addressee.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">method claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">product claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">supply by defendant to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">fair basing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">alleged prior publication in 1907</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">effect thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">double claiming</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">lack of title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1529">false suggestion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">infringement alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">combination patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">distinction between essential and inessential integers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">one integer not taken</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">whether essential.  patents act, 1952 s.40.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">combination patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">infringement alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">"pith and marrow" test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">essential features of patentee's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">whether alleged infringer has taken all essential features</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1982] FCA 45">patents act 1952 (cth), s. 40. the appellants were owners of letters patent to an invention relating to a machine for planting sugar cane. the respondents manufactured and sold after the date of the appellants' patent a machine which, in the view of the appellants, infringed their patent. the appellants sued and lost in the supreme court of queensland (connolly j.) and then appealed.  held, per curiam, that on the "pith and marrow" test the separate nature of the small bin and the supply container was a deliberate and essential feature of the patented invention. in the respondents' machine the trough at the front of the respondents' hopper and the rear part of it were elements of one large container. the appeal should therefore be dismissed.  radiation ltd. v. galliers and klaerr pty. ltd. [1938] hca 17 ; (1938), 60 clr 36 ; olin corporation v. super cartridge co. pty. ltd. [1977] hca 23 ; (1977), 51 aljr 525 ; catnic components ltd. v. hill  smith ltd., (1981) fsr 60 , followed.  welch perrin  co. pty. ltd. v. worrel [1961] hca 91 ; (1961), 106 clr 588 ; beecham control group ltd. v. bristol laboratories ltd., (1978) rpc 153 ; marconi v. british radio-telegraph and telephone co. ltd. (1911), 28 rpc 181 ; walker v. alemite corporation [1933] hca 39 ; (1933), 49 clr 643 ; warren v. coombes [1979] hca 9 ; (1979), 142 clr 531 , referred to.  clark v. adie (1875), 10 ch app 667 ; minnesota mining  manufacturing co. v. beiersdorf (australia) ltd. [1980] hca 9 ; (1980), 144 clr 253 , considered.  hearing  sydney, 1981, october 20-22; 1982, april 6. 6:4:1982</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">counterclaim for revocation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">prior user</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">prior publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1977] HCA 19">patents act 1952 (cth), s. 100 (1) (e), (g).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">combination claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">words used in specification and claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">ambiguity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">consistory clause</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">generality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">sufficiency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1961] HCA 91">patents act 1952-1955 (cth) ss. 40*, 100 (1) (c), (e), (g) and (h).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">original agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">subsequent agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">same parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">same subject matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">earlier contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">abrogation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">particular provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">particular term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">"rescission"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">"variation"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">effect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">performance in manner not originally approved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">"without prejudice"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">"accord"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">"satisfaction"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">completion of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">where made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">when made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">contract made outside state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">jurisdiction of state court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">implied rescission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.22">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.23">cited from="[1957] HCA 10">intention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">construction of claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of the relevant field of art</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of the skilled addressee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of grammatical questions and syntax of the object statement contained in the specification    intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of whether a contended infringing spring clutch achieves the same functionality of a spring clutch of claim 13 of the patent in suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 222">consideration of grounds of revocation including lack of clarity, inutility, lack of novelty and false suggestion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">collapsible canopy framework</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">introduction of u-shaped mount with non-compressive pin to give stability to frame</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">claim was for combination of discrete technologies not only for introduction of novel mount with non-compressive pin</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">history of prior us patents for collapsible canopy frameworks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">existence of u-shaped mounts formed part of common general knowledge in australia. held : the combination was not obvious, having regard to common general knowledge in australia. patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">collapsible canopy framework</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">introduction of u-shaped mount with non-compressive pin to give stability to frame</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">claim was for combination of discrete technologies not only for introduction of novel mount with non-compressive pin</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">evidence that earlier collapsible canopy (the original) was used at motocross and jet-ski races</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">original anticipated all claims except one</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">whether information disclosing the invention had been made "publicly available" as required by s 7(1) of the patents act 1990 (cth) at the race meetings. held : it had. patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.15">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 139">identifying "the invention, so far as claimed in any claim" for purposes of s 18(1) of the patents act 1990 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 222" id="cs0">The principles to be applied in construing the claims have been reviewed extensively in a number of recent authorities ( Sachtler GmbH  Co. KG v R E Miller Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 788 ; (2005) 221 ALR 373 ; (2005) 65 IPR 605 per Bennett J ( Sachtler ); Fresenius Medical Care Australia Pty Ltd v Gambro Pty Ltd [2005] FCAFC 220 ; (2005) 224 ALR 168 ; (2006) 67 IPR 230 , per Wilcox, Branson and Bennett JJ; K D Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd v Insta Image Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 481 ; (2007) 71 IPR 615 per Kiefel J; Clorox Australia Pty Ltd v International Consolidated Business Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 261 ; (2006) 68 IPR 254 per Stone J; Nufarm Ltd v Jurox Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 178 ; (2008) 75 IPR 341 per Middleton J; Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-Lambert Co. LLC (No. 2) [2006] FCA 1787 ; (2007) 71 IPR 46 per Young J; Pfizer Overseas Pharmaceuticals v Eli Lilly  Co. [2005] FCAFC 224 ; (2006) 68 IPR 1 per French and Lindgren JJ and Crennan J agreeing). I have had particular regard to the decision of the Full Court in Pfizer , the statement of ten principles of construction identified by Sheppard J in Dcor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc. (1988) 13 IPR 385 at 400, the judgment of the Full Court in Insta Image Pty Ltd v K D Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 139 ; (2008) 78 IPR 20 at [82] , the judgment of the Full Court in Kinabalu Investments Pty Ltd v Barron  Rawson Pty Ltd [2008] FCAFC 178 at [44] and [45] and the judgment of the Full Court in PAC Mining Pty Ltd v Esco Corporation [2009] FCAFC 18 at [26] to [29]. As Lindgren J observed in Breville Pty Ltd v Warehouse Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1893 ; (2006) 67 IPR 576 at [41] , the Court is frequently called upon to refer to the principles which govern the construction of claims and "on each new occasion it seems that the same authorities plus the last preceding one are reviewed. And so the list lengthens. " I propose to simply state the propositions to be applied derived from these authorities and some others in construing claim 13 of the patent in suit and any claim upon which it rests. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 139" id="cs1">1 The appellants appeal from orders of the Court that were made on 3 and 24 April 2007 in association with reasons published on 3 April 2007: see KD Kanopy Australasia Pty Ltd v Insta Image Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 481 ; (2007) 71 IPR 615. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">PATENTS ACT 1990 </title>
<title id="l1">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 7 Novelty and inventive step</title>
<title id="l2">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 18 Patentable inventions</title>
<title id="l3">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 40 Specifications</title>
<title id="l4">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 120 Infringement proceedings</title>
<title id="l5">PATENTS ACT 1990 - SECT 195 Evidence--the Register</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">application for business skills migrant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">failure to satisfy regulation 131.214</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">opportunity to respond to critical issue on which decision likely to turn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">right to comment upon adverse material from third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether critical issue obvious to applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether issue apparent from nature or terms of statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether applicant knew regulation 131.214 in issue migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether common law procedural fairness excluded by s 51a of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">proper construction of ss 51a , 357a and 422b  migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">finding by delegate that criterion in regulation 131.214 was not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">whether evidence required in order to make finding that not satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">effect of s 65 of migration act 1958 (cth). migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">ss 51a , 57 , 65 , 357a , 422b  migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] FCAFC 61">reg 131</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 494">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 494">invitation by refugee review tribunal to attend hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 494">hearing rescheduled at request of applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 494">notice requirements for rescheduled hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 494">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 494">ambit of s422b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">failure of appellant to attend tribunal hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">appellant asserts error by migration agent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">real and meaningful invitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">duty of tribunal to investigate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">no obligation on tribunal to make case for appellant migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 93">ss 425 and 427</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant did not respond to invitation to hearing before refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant sent medical certificate three days prior to scheduled hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">tribunal then rescheduled hearing in ten days time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">tribunal informed appellant of rescheduled hearing by pre-paid post</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant did not attend rescheduled hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">appellant did not raise concerns about rescheduled hearing or notice period before federal magistrate or federal court on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">whether tribunal required to provide notice of rescheduled hearing in accordance with s 425a(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">whether failure to do so constitutes jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1026">whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 58 Invitation to give further information or comments</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 426A Failure of applicant to appear before Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 13.03A When a party is in default</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1001">workplace relations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1001">breach of part xa of the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1001">union membership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1001">union advised, encouraged or incited discriminatory conduct  penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1001">agreement between parties as to proposed penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1001">penalty should be within the range of penalties the court would impose itself</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1001">when the proposed penalty is within the appropriate range the court may give effect to agreement between the parties and need not exercise an independent discretion or decide whether it would have found the same penalty</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">commissioner of taxation v hart  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">avoidance of tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">tax benefit under income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">whether scheme entered into for the dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">meaning of "scheme"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">split loan facility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">where money borrowed in part to purchase a principal place of residence and in part to refinance investment property used to produce assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">where expenditure in relation to producing assessable income deductible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] HCA 26">where repayments on loan applied solely in satisfaction of that part of the loan not used to produce assessable income.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">scheme to reduce tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">tax benefit in connexion with scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">commissioner's power to cancel benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">scheme identification of facts by commissioner as scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">whether binding on power to cancel benefit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">reasonable expectation of inclusion of amount in taxpayer's assessable income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">purpose of entering scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1994] HCA 43">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 177a(1) "scheme", (5), 177c(1)(a), 177d, 177f(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">action in state court to recover primary and additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">whether barred by state limitation statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 170 , 204, 206-209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">limitation of actions act 1974 (q.), s. 10(1)(d) , (5).  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">action to recover primary and additional income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">applicability of state limitation statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 170 , 204, 206-209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">limitation of actions act 1974 (q.), s. 10(1)(d) , (5).  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">action in state court to recover additional tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">whether barred by state limitation statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 170 , 204, 206-209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">limitation act 1969 (nsw), s. 18.  limitation of actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">action to recover additional income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">applicability of state limitation statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 170 , 204, 206-209</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 64</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[1988] HCA 29">limitation act 1969 (nsw), s. 18.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">purchase of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"assumption" by purchaser of liability of vendor for or on account of annual leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">whether employees to be "taken over" by purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">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="cp5.5">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="cp5.6">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">income tax assessment act 1936 , ss. 25, 26 (j).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">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="cp5.8">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">administrative appeals tribunal act 1977, s. 44.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">"matter" within meaning of chapter iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">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="cp5.11">cited from="[1988] FCA 119">the content of that matter.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">group of companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">finance group within larger group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">intra-group loans</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">unpaid principal and interest written off as bad</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether unpaid principal written off as bad allowable deductions under ss 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">35 (1)(b) or 8-1 of the income tax assessment act 1997 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether loans made by lender in the ordinary course of a business of lending money</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether business of lending money had ceased in respect of loans made after a certain date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether unpaid interest written off as bad allowable deductions under ss 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">35 (1)(a) or 8-1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether unpaid interest written off as bad properly brought to account as assessable income in year in which it accrued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether cash or accruals basis of accounting appropriate.  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether interest on intra-group loans allowable deductions under s 8-1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether incurred in carrying on business for the purpose of producing assessable income within s 8-1(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">to be determined objectively by reference to the relationship between what the expenditure is for and the taxpayer's undertaking or business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">subjective motive not relevant in a case such as this</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether an outgoing of a capital nature within s 8-1(2)(a).  income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">part iva of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether a 'scheme'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether a tax benefit obtained in connection with a scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">amount of tax benefit so obtained a function of the counterfactual</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">the counterfactual must be a prediction that is sufficiently reliable for it to be regarded as reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">whether purpose of obtaining a tax benefit can be attributed to a person or persons who entered into or carried out the scheme as the dominant purpose of that person or those persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">relevance of other possibilities which the taxpayer might have undertaken if the scheme had not been entered into in determining whether such a purpose should be attributed.  held: appeals dismissed.   legislation: income tax assessment act 1997 (cth) ss 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.25">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">35 (1)(a), 25</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.26">citing from="[2011] FCAFC 49">35 (1)(b), 8-1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">capital gains tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">scrip-for-scrip roll-over relief under subdivision 124-m of the income tax assessment act 1997 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">whether the parties to the transaction dealt with each other "at arm's length".  taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">capital gains tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">part iva of the income tax assessment act 1936 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">whether the respondent obtained a "tax benefit" in connection with the scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 134">identification of the alternative postulate.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">appeal from objection decision of the commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">capital gains tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">part iva income tax assessment act 1936</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">whether applicant entered into scheme for the dominant purpose of obtaining a tax benefit  taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">part iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">whether either of the schemes identified by commissioner satisfy requirements of s 177a and 177d  taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">part iva schemes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">revaluation of assets and declaration of dividend equal to amount of increase in value of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">shareholder a related subsidiary company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">payment of dividend largely funded by unsecured inter-company loan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">shareholder subsequently injected additional equity into company which declared dividend</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">shareholder subsequently transferred shares to another subsidiary  taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">part iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">whether taxpayer would have obtained the tax benefit that the commissioner has identified in connection with narrow or wide scheme but for operation of part iva  taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">part iva</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">manner in which scheme carried out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">form and substance of scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 939">time at which scheme carried out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">misconduct tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">police officer dismissed from qps</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">knowingly giving false testament to cmc hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">facilitated social visit for serving prisoner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">no official purpose for visit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">approach by tribunal on appeal to guidance in disciplinary action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">sanction imposed manifestly excessive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2010] QCAT 109">suspension of order for dismissal with respect to matter 2 refused.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCAFC 49" id="cs0">(10) The taxpayer may lead evidence that it would have undertaken a particular activity, or adopted a particular course in lieu of the scheme. If a taxpayer has given evidence of what he or she would have done but for entering the scheme, that evidence will be relevant and useful to the extent to which it reveals facts or matters that bear upon the objective determination of the alternative postulate: Trail Bro s at [36]; AXA Asia Pacific Holdings at [139]; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Mochkin [2003] FCAFC 15 ; (2003) 127 FCR 185 at 209 --- 210. (11) The taxpayer can give evidence as to what it would have done in the absence of the scheme, provided foundation facts are given to support what would otherwise be a bald speculative statement: McCutcheon v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 318 ; (2008) 168 FCR 149 at 163 --- 164; AXA Asia Pacific Holdings at [140]. The actual rejection of some alternatives is relevant

 (12) The taxpayer's actual rejection of an alternative at the relevant time will be important evidence in determining what would have been expected to have occurred: Spotless Services at 422, 424; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Spotless Services Limited (1995) 62 FCR 244 at 284 --- 285. In Spotless Services , the Court considered that the taxpayer's actual rejection of one alternative to the scheme to be relevant to its conclusion that only one alternative remained open to the taxpayer.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 134" id="cs1">140 As Greenwood J stated in McCutcheon v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 318 ; (2008) 168 FCR 149:

 [37] It is perfectly clear that a deponent in seeking to demonstrate (and discharge the onus of proof) that an assessment is excessive having regard to a prediction as to whether an amount might reasonably have been included in the assessable income of the taxpayer, cannot simply give evidence that the answer is to be found in the deponent speculating as to what he or she would or would not have done in the absence of the scheme ( WD  HO Wills (Australia) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1996) 65 FCR 298). The Commissioner accepted in the course of argument on the appeal that it is perfectly proper for a deponent in the position of Mr McCutcheon to say in evidence that the trustee (controlled by the taxpayers) would not have made distributions of the amounts postulated by the Commissioner to the taxpayers, provided the foundation for that observation or conclusion is given in evidence. In other words, Mr McCutcheon might have said that "the trustee would never have distributed such a substantial portion to either my wife or I" because (or for that reason that) and then identify factual circumstances which support the proposition.

141 The objective facts before the trial judge were that the Underwriting Agreement (see [94] above) and the Equity Sell Down Agreement (see [95] above) would not have been entered into had the scheme not been carried out and the fees payable to MBL under those agreements would have been lost. These objective facts were identified by Mr Facioni and accepted by the trial judge thereby discharging AXA's onus of demonstrating that the Commissioner's alternative postulate "was not sufficiently reliable for it to be regarded as reasonable": McCutcheon [2008] FCA 318 ; 168 FCR 149. The trial judge was entitled to have regard to and rely upon the evidence of Mr Facioni. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 939" id="cs2">The burden of proving that the Commissioner's assessment is excessive falls upon the taxpayer, in this case RCI. As Greenwood J observed in McCutcheon v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 318 ; (2008) 168 FCR 149 at 166, this,

 necessarily involves each taxpayer adducing evidence which would discharge the onus of demonstrating that the Commissioner's prediction or hypothesis was not sufficiently reliable for it to be regarded as reasonable.

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] QCAT 109" id="cs3">The Appellant in his Outline rightly points out that this Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence and may inform itself of anything in the way it considers appropriate. It is submitted that s 23 of the MTA does not release the Tribunal from an obligation to apply rules of law in arriving at its decision. He further submits by reference to a decision of McCutcheon  Anor v The Federal Commissioner of Taxation [2008] FCA 318 ; (2008) 168 FCR 149 that this Tribunal should only refer to relevant evidence when coming to a conclusion about the facts in issue. This issue is considered later in the Decision. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 43 Tribunal's decision on review</title>
<title id="l2">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l4">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 55 Relevant evidence</title>
<title id="l5">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 97 The tendency rule</title>
<title id="l6">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 </title>
<title id="l7">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177A Interpretation</title>
<title id="l8">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177C Tax benefits</title>
<title id="l9">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177D Schemes to which Part applies</title>
<title id="l10">INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1936 - SECT 177F Cancellation of tax benefits etc.</title>
<title id="l11">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 </title>
<title id="l12">TAXATION ADMINISTRATION ACT 1953 - SECT 14ZZO Grounds of objection and burden of proof</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 931">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 931">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 931">nurse with epilepsy and secondary sleep deprivation and paranoid ideation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 931">rostered with night and day shifts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 931">request for accommodation for disability refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 931">indirect discrimination found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 931">compensation for distress awarded.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">human rights and discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">racial vilification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">whether conduct of respondent rendered unlawful by s 18c of the racial discrimination act 1975 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">whether publication of material on world wide web reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate jewish people in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">whether first respondent has legal personality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">relief granted against second respondent practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 55">failure of respondent to file a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 197">discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 197">disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 197">indirect discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 197">offer of enrolment by a school to a deaf student conditional on the acceptance of a 'model of learning support' that excluded the provision of auslan (australian sign language) interpreting services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 197">reasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 197">disability discrimination act 1992 (cth) ss 6 , 22</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">sex discrimination act 1984</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">taking of carer's leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">employment contract not renewed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">whether dismissal on grounds of sex and/or family responsibilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">no evidence to support finding of discrimination on ground of sex</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">whether any evidence to support finding of discrimination on ground of family responsibilities practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">appeal from judgment of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">formation of appeal grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">challenge to factual foundations of steps in reasoning process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">whether any evidence to support findings of federal magistrate relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">form of declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">level of specificity required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">discretionary relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 654">whether grant of declaratory relief in addition to award of damages warranted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">civil and political rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">indirect discrimination on ground of disability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">boy with congenital profound deafness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">mainly communicated by auslan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">about to enter high school</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">whether in circumstances reasonable for education provider not to take more steps to provide auslan interpreting assistance for class room instruction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">such assistance provided in primary school operated by same education provider.  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2003] FCA 1085">merely compensatory. australian iron  steel pty lt v banovic [1989] hca 56 ; (1987) 168 clr 165 at 178-79; 187, applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">human rights and discrimination law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">racial discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">racial vilification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">proceedings to enforce determination of human rights and equal opportunity commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">hearing de novo of original complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">representative claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">necessity for class to be closed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">entitlement of applicant alone to institute proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether jews in australia constitute a group of people with common "ethnic origin"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether non-password protected website caused material to be `communicated to the public'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">meanings of the words offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">ordinary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether publication of material on website reasonably likely to offend or intimidate jews in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">objective test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">real effects</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether "ethnic origin" one factor in the content of material on website  racial vilification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">applicable principles in determining whether material reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">principles of defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.18">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">objective test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.19">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether imputations would be conveyed to an ordinary reasonable reader  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.20">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.21">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.22">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">repeated failure of respondent to file a defence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.23">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">respondent unwilling to cooperate in bringing proceeding to trial  relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.24">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.25">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">utility of injunction to restrain internet publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.26">cited from="[2002] FCA 1150">whether apology or retraction should be ordered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2002] FMCA 95">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2002] FMCA 95">disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2002] FMCA 95">discrimination on the basis of restriction on assistance dog</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2002] FMCA 95">access to premises</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2000] FMCA 5">s 9 disability discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2000] FMCA 5">guide dogs, hearing assistance dogs and trained animals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">practice (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">damages for personal injuries</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">interest on damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">receipt of workers' compensation before judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">liability to repay compensation on award of common law damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">whether compensation excluded from amount on which interest calculated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 94(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1991] HCA 15">workers' compensation act 1926 (n.s.w.), ss. 9, 16, 64(1)(a).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">sex discrimination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">sexual harassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">nature of the concept of sexual harassment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">decision by the human rights and equal opportunity commission upholding complaints of sexual harassment but refusing any award of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">whether decision of commission attended with any error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">in relation to conduct at pre-employment interviews, relevance of facts that complainants were subsequently offered employment and that complainants refused to answer some questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">in relation to subsequent conduct, whether, upon the basis of the commission's findings, the applicants were entitled to damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">relevance of public exposure of respondent's conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1989] FCA 72">power of federal court to determine any claim for damages without further reference to commission.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] SAEOT 6" id="cs0">At the hearing, the issue of an apology was not pursued. In our view, an apology would be of no real value (see Forest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 1236 at para 13. )  CARMAN v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD [2009] SAEOT 6 (29 July 2009)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Equal Opportunity Tribunal of South Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Equal Opportunity Tribunal of South Australia  2009  [2009] SAEOT 6

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] CARMAN v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD [2009] SAEOT 6 (29 July 2009)
Last Updated: 29 July 2009
 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
 (District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)

 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

 CARMAN v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD

 [2009] SAEOT 6

 Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Ms H Jasinski and Member Ms A Bachmann

 29 July 2009

 DISCRIMINATION LAW

Allegation of discrimination on the basis of impairment against an applicant for a position of bus operator - whether respondent acted in contravention of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 - the rejection of the application found to be in contravention of the Act - appeal allowed - compensation awarded. Equal Opportunity Act 1984 ; Workplace Relations Act 1996 , referred to. Forest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 1236 ; Gama v Qantas Airways No 2 [2006] FMCA 1767 , considered.

 CARMAN v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD
 [2009] SAEOT 6

 On 16 September 2005, Mr Carman complained to the Commissioner of Equal Opportunity ("the Commissioner") that Torrens Transit Services (North) Pty Ltd ("Torrens Transit") had discriminated against him by denying him access to employment contrary to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 ("the Act"). The Commissioner attempted to conciliate the complaint, but was unsuccessful. The Commissioner referred the complaint to this Tribunal pursuant to s 95(8) of the Act, for hearing and determination on 19 March 2008. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] SAEOT 12" id="cs1">The complainant asks that the Tribunal order Torrens Transit to apologise to him. The Tribunal has power to make such an order pursuant to s 96(1)(c). However, in circumstances such as these, it is our view that an apology made only to comply with an order of the Tribunal would be of no real value. (see Forest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 1236 at para 13).
  TARR v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD [2008] SAEOT 12 (4 September 2008)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Equal Opportunity Tribunal of South Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Equal Opportunity Tribunal of South Australia  2008  [2008] SAEOT 12

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] TARR v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD [2008] SAEOT 12 (4 September 2008)
Last Updated: 4 September 2008
 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
 (District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)

 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

 TARR v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD

 [2008] SAEOT 12

 Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Mr D Shetliffe and Member Ms H Jasinski

 4 September 2008

 DISCRIMINATION LAW

Allegation of discrimination against an application for a position of bus operator on the basis of a pre-employment functional assessment - whether respondent acted in contravention of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 - the rejection of the application was found to be in contravention of s67(1)(a) of the Act - appeal allowed - compensation awarded. Equal Opportunity Act 1984 , referred to. Smith v St John Ambulance Australia - South Australia Incorporated (1992) 166 LSJS 231 ; Forest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 1236 ; Gama v Qantas Airways No 2 [2006] FMCA 1767 , considered.

 TARR v TORRENS TRANSIT SERVICES (NORTH) PTY LTD
 [2008] SAEOT 12

 Introduction

 Mr Tarr complained to the Commissioner of Equal Opportunity ("the Commissioner") that Torrens Transit (North) Pty Ltd ("Torrens Transit") had discriminated against him contrary to the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 ("the Act"). The Commissioner attempted to conciliate the complaint, but was unsuccessful, and therefore referred the complaint to this Tribunal pursuant to s 95(8) of the Act for hearing and determination. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] SAEOT 2" id="cs2">It is clear to us from Ms Colquhoun's evidence that she has experienced an injury to her feelings within the meaning of s 96(3) because of the actions of the club. She has experienced hurt and disappointment over a number of years because of the actions of the Club, and there is now little foreseeable prospect that she will ever attain her objective of becoming a member. In all of the circumstances, we believe an award of $10,000 in damages is appropriate. In fixing that amount, we have considered the range of damages awarded in Equal Opportunity cases (eg Forest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 1236 , Cross v Hughes  Anor [2006] FMCA 976 , Abdulla v Berkeley on Hindley Street P/L [2005] SAEOT 2 , Abdulrahman v Toll Pty Ltd trading as Toll Express [2006] NSWADT 221 , Molesworth v Campbell and Patcono Pty Ltd [2004] QADT 30 , Bellamy v McTavish  Pine Rivers Shire Council [2003] QADT 15).
  COLQUHOUN v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRAILER BOAT CLUB INC (No 2) [2008] SAEOT 2 (28 February 2008)

 [ Home ] [ Databases ] [ WorldLII ] [ Search ] [ Feedback ] Equal Opportunity Tribunal of South Australia You are here: AustLII  Databases  Equal Opportunity Tribunal of South Australia  2008  [2008] SAEOT 2

 [ Database Search ] [ Name Search ] [ Recent Decisions ] [ Noteup ] [ Download ] [ LawCite ] [ Help ] COLQUHOUN v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRAILER BOAT CLUB INC (No 2) [2008] SAEOT 2 (28 February 2008)
Last Updated: 28 February 2008
 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TRIBUNAL
 (District Court Administrative and Disciplinary Division)

 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court in which it was generated.

 COLQUHOUN v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRAILER BOAT CLUB INC (No 2)

 [2008] SAEOT 2

 Judgment of Her Honour Judge Cole, Member Mr D Shetliffe and Member Ms B Worley

 28 February 2008

 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

 Orders sought by complainant following Tribunal's finding that the respondent breached the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 - power of the Tribunal to make certain orders considered - award of $10,000 in damages to the complainant and order for the publication of an apology by the respondent to the complainant. Equal Opportunity Act 1984 s 93(2), s 96; Associations Incorporation Act 1985 , referred to. Hall  Ors v A  A Shieban Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 72 ; (1989) 20 FCR 217 ; Forest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 1236 ; Cross v Hughes  Anor [2006] FMCA 976 ; Abdulla v Berkeley on Hindley Street P/L [2005] SAEOT 2 ; Abdulrahman v Toll Pty Ltd trading as Toll Express [2006] NSWADT 221 ; Molesworth v Campbell and Patcono Pty Ltd [2004] QADT 30 ; Bellamy v McTavish  Pine Rivers Shire Council [2003] QADT 15 , considered.

 COLQUHOUN v SOUTH AUSTRALIAN TRAILER BOAT CLUB INC (No 2)
 [2008] SAEOT 2

 On 7 December 2007, our judgment in this matter regarding the question of whether the SA Trailer Boat Club Inc ("the club") has breached the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 ("the Act") was published. On 31 January 2008, we heard submissions from the parties as to what orders should follow from that judgment. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 </title>
<title id="l1">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 23 Access to premises</title>
<title id="l2">DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION ACT 1992 - SECT 24 Goods, services and facilities</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>