Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 248">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 248">leave to raise new grounds on appeal not raised at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 248">no reasonable prospect of success practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 248">leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 248">issue raised at first instance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 248">forensic choice of legal representatives not to adduce available evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 248">leave refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">appeal from decision of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">appellant claimed fear of persecution for political activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">refugee review tribunal accepted some claims of assault, property damage and threats</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">tribunal found no fear of future harm amounting to persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">tribunal held state-protection available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">whether tribunal misinterpreted the terms "well-founded fear" and "persecution". application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">leave to amend notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">journal article joint authored by presiding tribunal member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">article published after decisions of tribunal and federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">article argued that state-sanctioned torture was morally justifiable in some circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">different notion of persecution than that required by law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">whether new grounds of appeal had reasonable prospect of success. held (on appeal): tribunal's evaluation of threats made and past harms in finding no persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">revealed no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">state protection available in the circumstances in any event. held (on application for leave): content of journal article incapable of firmly establishing reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">insufficient connection between the views expressed and the issues determined in the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">no demonstrable error in tribunal's definition of refugee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2006] FCA 635">no reasonable prospect of success.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">issue not raised at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">action for negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">conduct of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 12">prejudice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">ground of appeal added by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">allegation of technical invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">effect of seeking new trial on different issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">limited public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.),s. 75a(6).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">plea of authorship and ownership of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">general traverse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">defendant's case that copyright vested in partnership of which author a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no plea of assignment or transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">point not made issue by conduct at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">whether maintainable on appeal.  partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">acquisition from individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership act 1958 (vict.), s. 24(1).*   * section 24 of the partnership act 1958 (vict.) provides: "all property and rights and interests in property originally brought into the partnership stock or acquired whether by purchase or otherwise on account of the firm or for the purposes and in the course of the partnership business are called in this act partnership property and must be held and applied by the partners exclusively for the purposes of the partnership and in accordance with the partnership agreement."  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">devolution by operation of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no express assignment of copyright by individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 35 , 196 (1).+  + section 196(1) of the copyright act 1968 (cth) provides: "copyright is personal property and, subject to this section, is transmissible by assignment, by will and by devolution by operation of law."  breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">tax minimization scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">know-how</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">scope of protection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1064">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1064">application by non-resident child to live with father in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1064">whether course of study would lead to a trade qualification equivalent to an australian tafe certificate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1064">meaning of "genuine consideration" .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">review of migration review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">skilled</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">independent overseas student (residence) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">points system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">eligibility for bonus points</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">criterion based on length of employment in a skilled occupation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">matters which must be considered by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2009] FMCA 879">unarticulated claim.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1064" id="cs0">Mr Gibson referred to the decision in Martinez v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 781 where Goldberg J found at [33] that item 136.213(1)(a) of Schedule 2 required the Tribunal to determine
 "(c) the nature of the work or duties undertaken by the applicant during this period..."

In the present case the Court had only a very general description of the work performed by the applicant in Vietnam, and from that could not make a meaningful assessment of the equivalence of the course content in Vietnam and in Australia. At [25] ibid his Honour stated:

 "In my opinion the delegate was obliged to determine the nature of the work the applicant had undertaken. "

In the present case the applicant had not supplied sufficient detail for that to be done. After the request for further information
(Court Book 206.2 and 214.6) affidavits of Liu Thu Chin was received (Court Book 217 and 221) that relevantly merely stated that "Loan courses of training includes haircutting, washing, blowing, and drying, nail and beauty. " Marks are included at Court Book 221. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 879" id="cs1">The applicant submitted that the Tribunal made the same mistake as was made by a ministerial delegate and considered in Martinez v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2009] FCA 781. There, Goldberg J considered cl.136.213 of sch.2 to the Regulations which required the applicant to demonstrate that he had been "employed in a skilled occupation" for a particular period. The delegate rejected the applicant's claim to have been employed in a skilled occupation and performing the duties of the relevant occupation to the requisite level without having specifically determined the nature of the work that the applicant had undertaken, the duties involved and the period or periods during which the applicant had performed such work or duties. His Honour said: ... In my opinion, the delegate was obliged to determine the nature of the work which the appellant had undertaken and the duties he had undertaken in the course of his work and also the period or periods during which the appellant claimed to have undertaken that work and performed such duties. These matters were intertwined and both had to be addressed specifically in order for the delegate to determine whether the appellant satisfied subcl 136.213(1). As a matter of legal analysis, in order for the delegate to determine whether she was satisfied as to the nature of the employment of the appellant in the skilled occupation and that he had performed the duties of a cook it was necessary for the delegate to examine, consider and make a finding in respect of the period or periods during which the appellant had been employed in that occupation and performing those duties. If the delegate had turned her mind to identifying, and making a finding in respect of those periods, she may well have reached a different conclusion from the conclusion she reached in respect of her level of non-satisfaction as to the nature of the occupation undertaken by the appellant and the duties he performed as a cook. (at [35] --- [36]) </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 48 Non-citizen refused a visa or whose visa cancelled may only apply for particular visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 51A Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 57 Certain information must be given to applicant</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 338 Decisions reviewable by Migration Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">orders for judgment for cross-respondents on part of cross-claim made under s 31a(2) of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">balance of cross-claim remaining on foot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">nature of orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interlocutory or final</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">test for determining nature of order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legal effect of judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether judgment or order under s 31a for party on part or all of claim finally disposes rights of parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning dismissal of proceedings that are frivolous or vexatious, do not disclose a cause of action, or are an abuse of the process of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">applicability of case law concerning summary judgment under federal court rules , o 20 r 2 trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">unconscionable conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">claim pursuant to s 51ac(1) of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">relationship between sub-ss 51ac(1) and (9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">meaning of "price" in s 51ac(9)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">price of "supply or possible supply of goods or services"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether prices in all transactions between parties must be aggregated regardless of limited time at which conduct alleged to be unconscionable  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">interpretation and construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">construction of test in s 31a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">purposive test, acts interpretation act 1901 (cth), s 15aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">legislative intent behind s 51ac</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">whether sub-s 51ac(9) intended to provide an exception to sub-s 51ac(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 60">onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">action summarily dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 179">unreasonable to have subjected the respondents to the expenditure of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">award of indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 54">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">swain v waverley municipal council  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">standard of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">swimmer injured by diving into sandbank while swimming between flags</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">jury finding of negligence on part of council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">whether finding reasonably open on evidence.  appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">civil trial by jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">function of appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2005] HCA 4">appellate review of jury finding on issue of breach of duty of care.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">jackamarra v krakouer  anor  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">extension of time to enter an appeal for hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">appeal lodged within time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">procedural default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">assessment of merits in exercise of discretion to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">whether appeal is "arguable" or "fairly arguable"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">determination of "real prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1998] HCA 27">availability of evidence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">s 52 trade practices act 1974 (cth) action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">whether trial judge entitled to draw certain inferences from the evidence as presented at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">whether factual findings by trial judge permitted relief granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">whether gould v vaggelas [1985] hca 85 ; (1985) 157 clr 215 applies to s 52 actions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">whether an intention to mislead is an essential requirement for gould v vaggelas to apply in a s 52 context.  trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">s 52  fair trading act 1987 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 550">s 42</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">testator's family maintenance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">application by adult son fifty years of age and in good financial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">testator separated permanently from wife and son when son four years of age</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">no communication with them afterwards except by sending or causing to be sent to wife small monthly payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">son having no recollection of father</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">no attempt by son to get in touch with him</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">son helping to support his mother for eighteen years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">testator leaving a substantial estate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">no provision for son in his will</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">provision therein for payment to his widow of monthly sum for life</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">residue of estate given to ten named charities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1962] HCA 19">the testator's family maintenance acts, 1914 to 1952 (q.), s. 3 (1), (2) (c).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">appeals from decisions of the refugee review tribunal to the federal magistrate's court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">time limits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">deeming provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">time limits commence from actual (as opposed to deemed) notification of the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">method by which actual notification is effected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">giving a document to an authorised recipient is not effective actual notification for the purpose of s 477 of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 105">actual notification to an applicant of a decision of the rrt must be accomplished by physical delivery to the applicant of a written statement prepared by the rrt in accordance with s 430(1) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ;</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">appeal period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification of the decision was in the "prescribed way" under migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification by pre-paid post means the person is taken to have received the document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">business skills (residence) (class bh) visa, subclass 840 (business owner)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">appeal from a refusal of the migration review tribunal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">whether notification of minister's decision to refuse visa application is effective where written notification is sent by prepaid post to an address the minister knows will result in the notification being returned undelivered, and which was so returned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">the effect of subss 494b(4) and 494c(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">whether subs 494c(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth) evidences a contrary intention to the second limb of s 29 of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">means of notification of decision of delegate of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">consideration of ss 494b, 494c and 494d of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">purported notification sent by registered mail to appellant at care of address of authorised recipient</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">whether registered mail addressed in that way was given to authorised recipient migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">notification of decision of delegate of respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">consideration of ss 66(2)(d) of migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">whether notification fulfilled requirements of s 66(2)(d)(ii) where certain information required to be contained in notification argued to be incomplete or inaccurate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">contention first raised on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] FCAFC 311">issue not determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">review of refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">application dismissed.  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">complaint concerning standard of interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">solicitor for applicant seeking to have applicant further examined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 178">application to re-open dismissed.  the applicant in these proceedings is not to be identified pursuant to s.91x of the migration act 1958 (cth) and was given the pseudonym "szopd".  migration act 1958 (cth), ss.45 , 65 , 66 , 91x , 412(1)(b), 417, 494a-494d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">review of a decision of the migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">whether the tribunal was wrong to find that it did not have jurisdiction to review the delegate's decision because the application for review was made out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">whether the applicant was properly notified of the delegate's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">question of when time limits start from proper notification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">whether the tribunal failed to provide procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 957">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 933">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 933">judicial review of decision of migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 933">alleged jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 933">late application for review to migration review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 933">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">visa application refused by minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">applicant validly notified of decision by registered mail</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">later notification of applicant's change of address</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">further notification to non-existent address invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">whether second notification invalidates or cancels effect of first notification.    election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">tribunal holds it has no jurisdiction to entertain application to review visa refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">federal magistrate quashes decision and orders minister to notify applicant of refusal of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">minister complies with order and then seeks an extension of time within which to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">whether by not seeking a stay of magistrate's order minister has elected so as no longer able to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 963">whether right to seek stay and right to appeal are inconsistent rights.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 105">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 105">review of a refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 105">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 105">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 105">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 178" id="cs0">The sequence of statutory and regulatory provisions to which we have referred prescribes with precision the steps to be taken in notifying a visa applicant of the outcome of his or her application. 23. Other recent decisions are to the same effect: SZBMF v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1427 ; (2005) 147 FCR 485 ; Kim v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 64 ; SZJUA v Minister for Immigration  Cultural Affairs [2007] FCA 1184. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 957" id="cs1">On appeal the Court considered Xie, Murphy , and other decisions to the same relevant affect (at [23]): [ " SZBMF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1427; (2005) 147 FCR 485 ; Kim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 64 ; SZJUA v Minister for Immigration and Cultural Affairs [2007] FCA 1184. " ] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 933" id="cs2">Once again, I accept that WACB and SZKKC are distinguishable. The observations of Gilmour J in SZJUA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1184 at [30] point out, in my respectful view correctly, that there is a distinction between cases involving deemed notification (such as here) and those involving actual notification as required under s.477 of the Act which was considered in SZKKC . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 963" id="cs3">Other recent decisions are to the same effect: SZBMF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1427 ; (2005) 147 FCR 485 ; Kim v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 64 ; SZJUA v Minister for Immigration and Cultural Affairs [2007] FCA 1184. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 105" id="cs4">The mandatory nature of the time limits and the exercise of the Tribunal's jurisdiction is well-established: Fernando v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2000] FCA 324 ; VEAN of 2002 v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 311 ; (2003) 133 FCR 570 at [33] ; Durrani v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 629 at [24] ; SZJUA v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1184. The deemed notification of the delegate's decision is conclusive: Murphy v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2004] FCA 657 ; (2004) 135 FCR 550 at [69] . This remains to be the situation where a notification letter is returned to sender: SZBMF v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2005] FCA 1427 ; (2005) 147 FCR 485. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 411 Decisions reviewable by Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 412 Application for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">discovery and inspection of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">grounds for resisting production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">client legal privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">whether draft expert report, letters of instruction from clients' solicitors to expert witness, and notes prepared for preparation of final report are privileged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">waiver of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">whether privilege waived by service of final expert report</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">whether draft reports, letters of instruction and notes influenced content of final report so that use or service of final report inconsistent with maintaining privilege in those materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">waiver of privilege by voluntary disclosure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">held: draft expert report and preliminary letters of instruction from clients' solicitors to expert witness, privileged because created for dominant purpose of plaintiff being provided with legal services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">privilege not waived. procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">discovery and inspection of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">grounds for resisting production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">exclusion of evidence of settlement negotiations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">communication of extract of document made in the course of settlement negotiations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">held that defendant not entitled to inspect balance of document. considered: evidence act 1995 (cth), ss 117 , 119 , 122 , 126 , 131 (1)procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">discovery and inspection of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">grounds for resisting production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">documents created during later period reflecting historical financial position of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">where process of giving discovery of certain class of documents would be onerous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">discovery not necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">utility of discovery outweighed by burden</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 258">discovery not ordered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">discovery and inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">inspection by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 33">principles applicable to consideration of claim of legal professional privilege discussed. the applicant objected to the production of certain documents listed in its affidavit of discovery on the ground of legal professional privilege. on the respondent's application for inspection,</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">production of document for inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">report to department of public health on injury received by inmate of psychiatric centre</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 63">report obtained inter alia with intention of forwarding it to legal adviser if proceedings instituted against commission for damages for default.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 119 Litigation</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">admissibility of opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">not admissible unless opinion based on specialised knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether rule excluding opinion evidence as to matter of common knowledge is applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">operation of s 80 evidence act 1995 (cth) ('the act')</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">requirement to consider probative value of opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether evidence might cause or result in undue waste of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">discretion to exclude evidence under s 135 the acttrade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">competitors in retail chocolate market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">use of colour purple</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">principles relating to passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether exclusive reputation required under part v trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 70">whether use of colour purple likely to mislead or deceive consumers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">artistic work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">drawing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">whether a composite photographic and written work is a drawing.misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">whether "memento" is a descriptive word</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">whether applicant had a reputation in the name "memento" and in the layout of its packaging</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">whether layout of respondents' packaging deceptively similar to applicant's packaging</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FMCA 457">whether applicant's loss caused by respondents' layout being likely to mislead or deceive.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">i  l securities pty ltd v htw valuers (brisbane) pty ltd  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">enforcement and remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">loan transaction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">mortgage over land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">misleading and deceptive valuation of land by valuer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">failure by lender to make reasonable inquiries as to borrower's capacity to meet interest payments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">default on loan by borrower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">proceeds of sale by mortgagee insufficient to meet borrower's obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">liability of valuer for loss and damage suffered by lender</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">causal connection between contravention of trade practices act 1974 (cth) and loss and damage suffered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 41">whether damages awarded under s 82 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) to be reduced for lender's failure to take reasonable care to protect its own interests.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">copyright and designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">whether copyright subsists in a drawing of a single letter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">whether copyright can subsist in works protected under the trade marks act 1955</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">whether there is copyright in a computer printout of a written work, where the original was created on a floppy disk</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">whether s.77 of the copyright act 1968 can apply to photographs in a book</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">whether importation without licence.  judgments and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">case part-heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 617">whether interlocutory injunction can be given where a defence yet to be considered.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">original artistic work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">t-shirt with design comprising words, numerals and logo arranged in a distinctive manner to suggest usa college sporting team</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">also an associated "swing tag"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">whether the designs were drawings and therefore artistic works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">whether they were literary works because of presence of words and numerals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">distinction between literary works and artistic works</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">copying admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">whether respondent had taken only underlying idea rather than expression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">idea/expression dichotomy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">layout giving particular "look and feel" as artistic element</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">citing from="[2008] FCAFC 197">whether respondent had taken a substantial part of applicant's work by taking layout giving rise to the look and feel.held: (1) both t-shirt and swing tag were drawings and therefore artistic works, not literary works; (2) by taking layout giving rise to look and feel, respondent had taken original artistic element, and therefore a substantial part of the artistic work.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">breach of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">when confidentiality provision is a reasonable restraint of trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">factual and legal causation  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">distinction between ideas and expression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">causal connection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">infringement based on indirect access</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">whether declaration of unjustified threat of infringement may be had as of right equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">level of novelty or ingenuity required for information to be confidential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">circumstances in which an equitable obligation of confidence is attracted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">whether detriment to the confiding party is an element of the cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">whether design for truck trailer load restraint system was confidential</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 803">unauthorised oral disclosure of the design to competitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 2">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 2">appeal against dismissal by federal magistrate of copyright and trade practices claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 2">appellant rejected calderbank offer prior to trial in federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 2">appellant successful on trade practices claims on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 2">appellant's recovery less favourable than respondents' offer</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCAFC 197" id="cs0">50 We would adopt the following extract from [12] of the primary Judge's reasons:
 [There is] a body of case law, which establishes that (1) whether a work will be recognized as an artistic work such as a drawing is highly fact-specific, such that no bright-line rule can be drawn; and (2) the important principle in deciding whether the work is a "drawing" is whether the work at issue can be said to have a visual rather than "semiotic" function: Miller  Lang, Limited v Polak [1908] 1 Ch 433 (concluding that decorative wording and designs on Christmas cards were drawings for the purpose of the Fine Arts Copyright Act 1862 (UK); Roland Corporation  Anor v Lorenzo  Sons Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 617 ; (1991) 33 FCR 111 (holding that two logos consisting of a single letter each, "R" and "B," designed in a certain way were eligible for copyright protection as they were drawn with care and to obtain an effect); Anacon Corporation Ltd v Environmental Research Technology [1994] FSR 659 , at 662 (suggesting that a circuit diagram depicting how components were to be connected together could be an artistic work because it is "a thing to be looked at in some manner or other [and] is to be looked at in itself"); Lott v JBW  Friends Pty Ltd (2000) 76 SASR 105 (finding that a "graphic bar" consisting of four words in a woodcut design or font that was selected from a computer program was a drawing within the meaning of the Act because it was not so simple that the time and effort in designing the graphic design could be ignored); Australian Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd v Melbourne Chinese Press Ltd (2003) 58 IPR 1 at [107] (holding that a calligraphic rendering of a Chinese character used in a newspaper masthead was capable of constituting a "painting" under the Act because Chinese calligraphy is a visual art and played "an important cultural and aesthetic role in Chinese life of ancient origin"); Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922 ; (2007) 74 IPR 484 (holding that a layout for a box label comprising a photograph and several short lines of explanatory text and numbers was not capable of constituting an artistic work).  14 Her Honour referred to the definition of "drawing" found in the Act. She described the Designs as "arrangements of text with graphical elements in a particular pattern; not a representation of an object by a pictorial line" (at [11]). She also referred to the discussion of the term "drawing" by Heerey J in Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922 ; (2007) 164 FCR 369 ( Woodtree ) at [25], [27] and [28]. In Woodtree , Heerey J held that a layout for a box label comprising a photograph and several short lines of explanatory text and numbers was not capable of constituting an artistic work.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 803" id="cs1">124 An "artistic work" includes a "drawing ... whether [the drawing] is of artistic quality or not": s 10(1) of the Act . Each of the Krueger Sketch and the Krueger Drawings falls within the inclusive definition of a drawing, as each "is a two-dimensional work in which shapes and images are depicted by lines, often without colouring" ( Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922 ; (2008) 74 IPR 484 , at [25]), performing a visual rather than "semiotic" function: Anacon Corporation Ltd v Environmental Research Technology Ltd [1994] FSR 659 at 662. The Krueger Sketch and the Krueger Drawings are, therefore, artistic works.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 447" id="cs2">12 First, Woodtree , cannot be studied in isolation; it is part of a body of case law, which establishes that (1) whether a work will be recognized as an artistic work such as a drawing is highly fact-specific, such that no bright-line rule can be drawn; and (2) the important principle in deciding whether the work is a "drawing" is whether the work at issue can be said to have a visual rather than "semiotic" function: Miller  Lang, Limited v Polak [1908] 1 Ch 433 (concluding that decorative wording and designs on Christmas cards were drawings for the purpose of the Fine Arts Copyright Act 1862 (UK)); Roland Corporation  Anor v Lorenzo  Sons Pty Ltd [1991] FCA 617 ; (1991) 33 FCR 111 (holding that two logos consisting of a single letter each, "R" and "B," designed in a certain way were eligible for copyright protection as they were drawn with care and to obtain an effect); Anacon Corporation Ltd v Environmental Research Technology [1994] FSR 659 , at 662 (suggesting that a circuit diagram depicting how components were to be connected together could be an artistic work because it is "a thing to be looked at in some manner or other [and] is to be looked at in itself"); Lott v JBW  Friends Pty Ltd (2000) 76 SASR 105 (finding that a "graphic bar" consisting of four words in a woodcut design or font that was selected from a computer program was a drawing within the meaning of the Act because it was not so simple that the time and effort in designing the graphic design could be ignored); Australian Chinese Newspapers Pty Ltd v Melbourne Chinese Press Ltd [2003] FCA 878 ; (2003) 58 IPR 1 at [107] (holding that a calligraphic rendering of a Chinese character used in a newspaper masthead was capable of constituting a "painting" under the Act because Chinese calligraphy is a visual art and played "an important cultural and aesthetic role in Chinese life of ancient origin"); Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922 ; (2007) 74 IPR 484 (holding that a layout for a box label comprising a photograph and several short lines of explanatory text and numbers was not capable of constituting an artistic work). 9 In answering the first question, the starting point must be the definition of "drawing" found in the Act . As Cotton On correctly notes, that term is defined inclusively to include "a diagram, map, chart, or plan" (s 10(1) of the Act ). But while this definition is helpful in fleshing out what might otherwise not be considered as within the "core meaning" of drawing, it does not directly suggest that core meaning. In Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922 ; (2007) 74 IPR 484 , Heerey J accepted (at [25]) the definition of drawing given by Professor Ricketson in his treatise on copyright: namely that a drawing "is a two-dimensional work in which shapes and images are depicted by lines, often without colouring. " His Honour then went on to say (at [27]) that "the essence of a drawing remains the concept of a representation of some object by a pictorial line. "</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 2" id="cs3">1 In the substantive judgment on the appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court ( Woodtree Pty Ltd v Zheng [2007] FCA 1922) I upheld the appellant's appeal insofar as it was based on its claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) but rejected its claims for copyright infringement. I assessed damages at $3684.20. The questions of interest under s 51A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and costs were adjourned. The parties have now filed written submissions.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 10 Interpretation</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 3 Objects</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 42 Federal Magistrates Court to operate informally</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">claims of misleading or deceptive conduct and passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">whether appellant's connection with name 'mythbusters' sufficient to establish reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">name broadly descriptive, not distinctive to appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">class of addressees is ordinary members of the television viewing public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 170">temporary or commercially irrelevant misapprehension of association due to use of name not misleading or deceptive conduct.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">purported appeal from judgment of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">dismissal of application due to failure of applicant to appear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 172">failure to appear at directions hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 76">application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 76">decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 76">adverse findings of credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 76">alleged behaviour modification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 76">whether tribunal asked wrong question</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 76">tribunal's approach in accordance with applicant's claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">applications for an extension of time in which to appeal and for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment of a federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">where application dismissed by federal magistrate due to non-attendance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">no reasonable explanation for non-attendance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">no arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1491">applications refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">supreme court order refusing to set aside default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">whether order interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 35</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">high court rules, o. 70, r. 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 20">supreme court rules (n.s.w.) pt 40, r. 9(2).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">final or interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of extension of time to proceed against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether civil right amounting to $3,000 involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">special leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">grounds for grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">judiciary act 1903-1960 (cth), s. 35 (1) (a).  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">third party insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">unidentified vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">extension of time to institute proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">considerations applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">review of exercise of discretion on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">right of further appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether second application lies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">traffic act 1925 (tas.), s. 65a*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">supreme court civil procedure act 1932 (tas.), s. 45 (b).  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">solicitor and client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.22">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">reliance by client on advice of solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.23">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether client may subsequently resile from decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.24">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action not brought within prescribed time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.25">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">application to extend time.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] QDC 44" id="cs0">These principles remain of current relevance, as established by Federal Court decisions such as Szibd v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 429 and Mzwik v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural  Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 185.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 94" id="cs1">I refer to the authorities collected by Reeves J in SZIBD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 429 at [15] .</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 27 Evidence on appeal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 13.03A When a party is in default</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT RULES 2001 - REG 16.05 Setting aside</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">whether indemnity costs should be awarded against self-represented litigant in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">appeal from supreme court of state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">final or interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of extension of time to proceed against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether civil right amounting to $3,000 involved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">special leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">grounds for grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">judiciary act 1903-1960 (cth), s. 35 (1) (a).  insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">third party insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">unidentified vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action against nominal defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">extension of time to institute proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">considerations applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">review of exercise of discretion on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">right of further appeal to high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">refusal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether second application lies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.19">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">traffic act 1925 (tas.), s. 65a*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.20">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">supreme court civil procedure act 1932 (tas.), s. 45 (b).  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.21">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">solicitor and client</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.22">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">reliance by client on advice of solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.23">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">whether client may subsequently resile from decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.24">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">action not brought within prescribed time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.25">cited from="[1966] HCA 36">application to extend time.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 24 Appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">(defendant) file no: bs no 5016 of 2006 division: trial division proceeding: civil trial originating court: supreme court of queensland delivered on: 18 december 2008 delivered at: brisbane hearing date: decision on the papers judge: applegarth j order: it is declared that, for the purposes of the deed of partnership dated 29 october 1965, the net value of the deceased's share in the partnership, as at 1 february 2004, is $118,952. there be no order as to costs. exhibit 4 be returned to the plaintiff. there be liberty to apply in relation to the making of consequential orders on the giving of not less than seven days notice.  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">departing from the general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">other cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">substantial success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">judgment in partnership dispute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">where amount payable by plaintiff in consequence of judgment less than plaintiff's formal offer to settle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">where defendant incurred substantial costs resisting claims not abandoned by plaintiff until shortly before trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">where each party had both a measure of success and a measure of failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">citing from="[2008] QSC 334">whether any order should be made as to costs uniform civil procedure rules 1999 , r 360, r 361, r 684</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] QCA 248" id="cs0">[7] Unsurprisingly, the applicants in both proceedings point to their success in achieving the practical result that QCM's appeal to the Planning  Environment Court was dismissed.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] QSC 334" id="cs1">2) [2008] FCA 1184.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2004] HCA 37">al-kateb v godwin high court of australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">constitutional law(cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">powers of commonwealth parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">boat people to be kept in custody pending removal from australia or grant of entry permit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">court not to order release</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">whether usurpation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">the constitution (63 and 64 vict. c. 12), s. 51(xix) , ch. iii</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 64">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 54k "designated person", 54l, 54n, 54r, 88(8).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">public law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">restraint of enforcement of allegedly unconstitutional statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 58">principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">action for infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">principles governing grant or refusal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal identifies no error of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal only raises errors committed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1263" id="cs0">7 Division 2 of Part 8 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) provides for the manner in which decisions may be reviewed by the Federal Magistrates Court, the Federal Court and the High Court. Section 476 provides for the jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court. Section 476(2)(a) and (d), it has recently been held, are not invalid because they oblige the High Court to exercise exclusively and without remitter the jurisdiction conferred by s 75(v) of the Constitution with respect to certain decisions of the Minister: MZXOT v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] HCA 28. Section 476A provides for the limited original jurisdiction to be entertained by this Court: eg, Assad v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 1039 ; La Bara v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2008] FCA 785 at [3] ; Shuster v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCA 215 at [6]---[7] [2008] FCA 215 ; , 167 FCR 186 at 188. The appellate jurisdiction of this Court is relevantly that conferred by s 24(1)(d) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). That appellate jurisdiction may be exercised by a single Judge of this Court: s 25(1AA)(a). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CONSULAR PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES ACT 1972 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 39 Discretionary transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court or the Family Court</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 189 Detention of unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 193 Application of law to certain non-citizens while they remain in immigration detention</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 196 Duration of detention</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 198 Removal from Australia of unlawful non-citizens</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">corporations law 2001, part 5.4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">winding up in insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">statutory demand pertaining to disputed judgment debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">effect of failure to lodge application to set aside within prescribed time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">no abuse of process for creditor to exploit rebuttable presumption of insolvency to recover disputed debt under current statutory scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2002] NSWCA 417">nd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">stay of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">action for wrongful dismissal against university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">information for criminal defamation by plaintiff against officer of university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">predominant purpose of informant to secure reinstatement or favourable settlement of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 34">whether abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">action for infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">principles governing grant or refusal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">winding up in insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">where defendant served statutory demand and plaintiff's attempt to apply for an order setting aside miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">whether defendant responsible for the miscarriage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">held not</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">but subject matter of statutory demand obviously not a debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">subject matter explained by defendant in contemporary correspondence in terms making it clear that defendant knew there was no debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">resort to statutory demand procedure was a perversion of the statutory process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">any winding up application based on defendant's failure to pay will be an abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 298">injunction granted to restrain such application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">external administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">winding up in insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">where proceedings instituted after earlier s 459g application dismissed as incompetent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">when proceedings commenced more than three months after time for compliance with demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">whether presumption of insolvency arising from plaintiff's failure to comply can be relied on</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">whether defendant precluded from disputing plaintiff's status as creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">whether plaintiff has established standing as a creditor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">whether plaintiff has established standing as contingent creditor in respect of costs order previously made between parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">whether a prima facie case of insolvency made out</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">whether plaintiff should be granted leave to apply for company to be wound up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">citing from="[2009] NSWSC 509">whether application should be adjourned or dismissed to permit voluntary administration to proceed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1148">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1148">ch 5 pt 5.4 of the corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1148">s 459p application to wind up in insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1148">operation of s 459c(2)(a) presumption of insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1148">whether statutory demand 'stale'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1148">application summarily dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] NSWSC 298" id="cs0">In relation to item (2) above - the fact that the claim expressed in the statutory demand as a debt for "Breach of Agreement" was in truth an unliquidated claim - the plaintiff relies on reasoning found in the decision of Finn J in Hardel Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Allmark Property Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 22 ; (2008) 26 ACLC 122 and, in particular, the following statement of his Honour at [25]:

"A use of the statutory demand procedures in respect of a debt known to be spurious would give rise to an abuse of process if the statutory demand in turn was used to found a winding up application, the more so if, as alleged here, there is some evidence suggesting the likelihood that the statutory demand procedure itself is being used for some tactical purpose relating to proceedings in another court. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWSC 509" id="cs1">The emphatic language of s 459G(3) admits of no other conclusion: see Pinn v Barroleg Pty Ltd (1997) 138 FLR 417 ; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Tixana Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 968 ; (2003) 202 ALR 401 ; Hardel Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Allmark Property Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 22 ; (2008) 26 ACLC 122 at [1] .</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1148" id="cs2">11 It is now well settled that, if a s 459G application and affidavit are not filed and served within the time so specified, the Court has no power to extend the period for the making of such an application: see Aussie Vic Plant Hire at [3]; David Grant  Co Pty Limited (rec apptd) v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] HCA 43 ; (1995) 184 CLR 265. In the present matter, the statutory demand was served on Dromana on 29 November 2007. The application to set it aside was filed in the Supreme Court of Victoria on 20 December 2007. It was not served on Mr Gryst until 21 December 2007. In consequence, that application was not one made "in accordance with section 459G" of the Act. The emphatic language of s 459G(3) admits of no other conclusion: see Pinn v Barroleg Pty Ltd (1997) 138 FLR 417 ; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Tixana Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 968 ; (2003) 202 ALR 401 ; Hardel Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Allmark Property Management Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 22 ; (2008) 26 ACLC 122 at [1] . While counsel for the plaintiff has sought to avoid this conclusion by recourse to "purposive legislation", the Parliament, in my view, has spoken on this matter with unmistakeable clarity.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 437D Only administrator can deal with company's property</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 438B Directors to help administrator</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 438C Administrator's rights to company's books</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459C Presumptions to be made in certain proceedings</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459G Company may apply</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459Q Application relying on failure to comply with statutory demand</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459S Company may not oppose application on certain grounds</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 465A Notice of application</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>