Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1395">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1395">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1395">particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1395">function of particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1395">test of necessity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">application for leave to appeal interlocutory orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">where application set down before single judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">whether decision attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by full court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">whether substantial injustice would result from refusal of leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">whether trial judge applied correct principles in granting leave to file amended cross claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">whether cross claims sufficiently plead material facts and allow cross respondents to know the case they have to meet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 944">leave to appeal refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] VSC 216">5-6, 11-14, 18-21 august, 3-4 september 2003</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">professional negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">barrister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">solicitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">solicitor's duty to client based on contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">demutualisation of nrma</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">whether involved expropriation or oppression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">alteration of articles of association</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">"benefit of the company as a whole"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">whether decision in gambotto v wcp ltd (1995) 183 clr 432 was reasonably foreseeable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">whether lawyers' duty of care extended to possible change of law in high court appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">standard of care for leader of profession</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">duty of care in advice as to law when special leave to appeal has been granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">expert evidence in professional negligence cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">whether prospectus misleading or deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2000] NSWCA 374">"free shares". d  legislation cited:  decision:  see summary pp5-6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">boland v yates property corporation pty limited  webster v yates property corporation pty limited  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">professional negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">standard of care.  acquisition of land</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">determination of compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">special value of land to dispossessed owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">theory of "head start" to developers.  legal practitioners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">professional liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">barristers and solicitors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1999] HCA 64">immunity from action.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">civil procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">supreme court procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">applications to strike out pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">purpose of time limit provided for by o 20 r 19  torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">difference between aggravated damages and exemplary damages  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">aggravated damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">anonymous libel  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">exemplary damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">refusal to apologise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1999] WASC 140">republication where defendant seeks to remain anonymous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">limitation of actions (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to actions founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">onus of proving fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.  practice and procedure (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">action for breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">six year limitation period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">period inapplicable to action founded on fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">claim outside six year period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">defence that action statute barred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">no reply alleging fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">non-appearance of defendant at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">judgment for defendant on ground that no trust established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">finding of fraud on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.17">cited from="[1990] HCA 11">trustee act 1925 (n.s.w.), s. 69.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">whether hearing "discontinued"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">application for certificate.  federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 , s. 10(3).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">hearing fixed to commence on a particular date but no judge available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">whether hearing discontinued</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1985] FCA 228">federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 (cth), s 10(3)(a). a hearing which has been fixed to commence on a particular date but which does not do so because no judge of the court is available to hear it, has been "discontinued" within the meaning of s 10(3)(a) of the federal proceedings (costs) act 1981 (cth).  hearing  sydney, 1985, june 24-27. 27:6:1985</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">particulars of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">function</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">personal injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">loss of earning capacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">particulars estimating loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">evidence of loss exceeding estimate admitted at trial without objection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">verdict based on loss exceeding estimation in particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">plaintiff not bound by particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 70">rules of the supreme court (vict.), o. 19, r. 5a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">frustration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contract to carry out excavations for rail authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">completion required by certain date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">contractor working three shifts seven days per week</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">injunction granted to third party restraining contractor from working at certain times</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether implied term of contract that authority would grant reasonable extension of time and indemnify contractor against additional costs occasioned by grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">whether injunction frustrated contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">extrinsic evidence of intention.  arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">jurisdiction to entertain claim that contract frustrated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">power to award interest on award</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">compound interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 24">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 94(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">allegation of misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">motion to strike out statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">no material facts pleaded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">trade practices act 1974 (cth.), s. 52</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1979] FCA 74">federal court of australia rules, o. 20, r. 2; o. 4, rr. 1, 2; o. 11, r. 16; o. 12; o. 19. the applicant's statement of claim alleged misleading and deceptive conduct by the respondents in breach of s. 52 (1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth.). the respondents applied to have the statement of claim struck out, mainly on the basis that it did not disclose a reasonable cause of action. it was argued that the statement of claim did not plead any material facts which could form the basis of a claim under s. 52.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 655">category: no</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 655" id="cs0">In that regard, it may be noted that in many cases, the time and expense involved in the consideration and resolution of an interlocutory dispute is entirely disproportionate to its significance to the just and effective resolution of the case as a whole by mediation or trial: see Youlden Enterprises Pty Ltd v Heath Solutions (WA) Pty Ltd [2006] WASC 161 ; (2006) 33 WAR 1 (at [2]) per Martin CJ. Australian Courts in more recent times have taken a restrictive attitude towards interlocutory skirmishes in general and strike out applications in particular: see Grant v Monitor Money Corporation Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1716 per Siopis J (at [14]---[17] and [73]). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 - SECT 12DA Misleading or deceptive conduct</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1402 Old corporations legislation time limits etc.</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 No. 50, 2001 - SECT 817 Conduct engaged in as a representative</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 No. 50, 2001 - SECT 852 Adviser who breaches this Division liable to compensate</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">application to extend time to lodge supplementary bidder's statement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">application to extend time to further vary bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">extent of court's powers to make orders under s 1322(4)(d) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 698">orders made as asked</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">extension of time for compliance with s 625(3)(c)(i) of the corporations act sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1079">most appropriate form of and basis for relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">breach of fiduciary duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">corporations law, s232(6)-corporations act 2001, s182</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">money transferred to company in which directors had an interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">knowing receipt within barnes v addy (1864) lr 9 ch app 244</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">personal and proprietary remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">remedial constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] NSWCA 71">whether rescission necessary (d)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">selective capital reduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">whether separate meeting of minority shareholders was held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">whether if not held the capital reduction was nonetheless valid by force of s 256d of the law or could and should be validated by an order under s 1322(2) or (4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">whether scheme of arrangement required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">whether gambotto principles applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">whether failure to make proper disclosure to shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">whether capital reduction fair and reasonable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 427">all challenges to validity of capital reduction failed. d.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 257B Buy-back procedure--general</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 602 Purposes of Chapter</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 611 Exceptions to the prohibition</title>
<title id="l6">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 630 Defeating conditions</title>
<title id="l7">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 650C Off-market bids--extension of offer period</title>
<title id="l8">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 650D Off-market bids--method of making variation</title>
<title id="l9">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 661A Compulsory acquisition power following takeover bid</title>
<title id="l10">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 661B Compulsory acquisition notice</title>
<title id="l11">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 661E Holder may apply to Court to stop acquisition</title>
<title id="l12">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 664A Threshold for general compulsory acquisition power</title>
<title id="l13">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 664E Holder's right to object to the acquisition</title>
<title id="l14">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 664F The Court's power to approve acquisition</title>
<title id="l15">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1322 Irregularities</title>
<title id="l16">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1330 ASIC's power to intervene in proceedings</title>
<title id="l17">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l18">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 84">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 84">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 84">stay of supreme court order pending application for special leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 84">jurisdiction to grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 84">preservation of subject-matter of litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 84">factors relevant to exercise of discretion to grant stay.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1177">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1177">motion to set aside deed in relation to settlement of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1177">lack of good faith asserted insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1177">liquidator's duty to act independently in the best interests of the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 416">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 416">disqualification for apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 416">allegation that certain rulings and statements made by the trial judge taken together evidenced bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 416">application of "fair-minded lay observer" test</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 416">no grounds for disqualification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">offer of compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">application for indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">circumstances in which the court should 'otherwise order'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">defendant asserted that it had insufficient time and information to be able to consider the offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">no direct evidence to support assertions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">no reason to 'otherwise order'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">indemnity costs ordered costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">without prejudice offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">application for indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">consideration of calderbank principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">cross-defendant required to show that defendant's failure to accept the offer was unreasonable in all the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">whether unreasonable to reject a small offer when success in cause of action doubtful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">not unreasonable to pursue a claim in an untested area of the law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">indemnity costs not appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 1437">costs awarded on party/party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments of federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1275">whether indemnity costs should be awarded against self-represented litigant in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">application that respondent's costs of certain issues be paid on indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 536">discussion of applicable principles.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1988] FCA 202">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1988] FCA 202">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1988] FCA 202">discretion of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1988] FCA 202">award on solicitor and client' or indemnity' basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1988] FCA 202">whether application vexatious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1988] FCA 202">form of order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1986] FCA 85">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1986] FCA 85">discretion to award costs of a successful party on a solicitor and client basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1986] FCA 85">unsuccessful allegations of fraud and conspiracy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1986] FCA 85">failure of cross-claimant to give evidence in support of claim.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 141">human rights</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 141">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 141">whether respondent entitled to costs on an indemnity basis.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1256">amanda duncan-strelec</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1256">first plaintiffdavid strelec</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1256">second plaintiffdunlec pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1256">third plaintiffthomas richard tate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1256">first defendantelizabeth ruth tate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1256">second defendantwamego pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1256">third defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 689">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 689">review of registrar's decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1403">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1403">application to set aside bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1403">motion seeking trial with jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1403">no entitlement to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1403">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1403">normal mode of trial without jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1403">no substantial reason to depart from normal mode of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">litigant in person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">unfounded allegations of misconduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">plaintiff not seeking any redress</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">grounds existing for departing from usual order that costs be taxed on a party/party basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">grounds existing for departing from court's normal reluctance to order indemnity costs against litigant in person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">order for indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">citing from="[2008] VSC 316">rr 63.28 general rules of procedure in civil proceedings 1986 ch 1.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2138">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2138">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2138">damages.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2138">indemnity costs.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1594">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1594">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1594">unrepresented litigant</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 141" id="cs0">Courts are generally more reluctant to order a self-represented litigant to pay costs on an indemnity basis. In this case I am not satisfied that a self represented litigant such as Mr Zoltaszek should have known that there was no prospect of success or that he acted in a high-handed manner, proceeded vexatiously or made allegations which ought not to have been made, such that his rejection of the offer of settlement made at that time or any other circumstances warranted an award of indemnity costs. I have borne in mind that Mr Zoltaszek is a self-represented litigant lacking knowledge of the law, the practice of the court and, possibly, objectivity (see to similar effect Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 8) [2006] FCA 1537 and Salfinger v Niugini Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2007] FCA 1594). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 1256" id="cs1">This, it is submitted, bears directly upon the reasonableness of the plaintiffs' refusal to accept the offer. Compare Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No. 8) [2006] FCA 1537 at [21] per Kenny J (notice that offeror would press ahead with application for indemnity costs if offer refused entitled to little weight where offeree unrepresented, because self-represented litigant may not appreciate the risk). " </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 689" id="cs2">In Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 8), [9] Kenny J considered whether indemnity costs should be awarded against an unrepresented party. The litigant, in that case, had been put on notice that such an application would be made in circumstances where the conduct of the hearing by the litigant prolonged the hearing and wasted time. Her Honour noted at paragraph 20: On the one hand, litigants in person, even if partially assisted by lawyers, often produce significant difficulties and unnecessary expense for the parties against whom they proceed: see Bhagat v Royal  Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd [2000] NSWSC 159 at [13] per Hodgson CJ in Eq. These difficulties arise from their lack of knowledge of the law, unfamiliarity with court practice and, sometimes, lack of objectivity and want of lawyerly skills in reading and writing. Mr Spalla suffers, to some degree, from the disabilities of most self-represented litigants. There may be other factors too that compound a self-represented litigant's inability to utilise court procedures appropriately. On the other hand, a person's capacity to gain redress for legal wrongs in the courts should not depend on his or her ability to pay for legal representation. In seeking to balance these considerations, the courts have been generally more reluctant to make orders for indemnity costs against self-represented litigants than against legally represented litigants. [10] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] SADC 82" id="cs3">District Court Act 1991 , referred to. Cretazzo v Lombardi (1975) 13 SASR 4 ; Donald Campbell  Co. v Pollak [1927] AC 732 ; Hamod v New South Wales (2002) 188 ALR 659 ; Colgate-Palmolive Co.  Anor v Cussons Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 536 ; (1993) 46 FCR 225 ; Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd and Ors (No. 8) [2006] FCA 1537 , considered. FARDI v LOVEDAY (NO. 2)
 [2010] SADC 82

 In the principal judgment delivered in this matter, [1] I dismissed the plaintiff's application for damages in circumstances where liability had been admitted in connection with a slow speed, low impact motor vehicle accident involving the plaintiff as the driver of one car and the defendant as the driver of the other. In Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd and Ors (No. 8) [7] Kenny J said this:

 On the one hand, litigants in person, even if partially assisted by lawyers, often produce significant difficulties and unnecessary expense for the parties against whom they proceed. These difficulties arise from their lack of knowledge of the law, unfamiliarly with court practice and, sometimes, lack of objectivity and want of lawyerly skills in reading and writing. ... There may be other factors too that compound a self represented litigant's inability to utilise court procedures appropriately. On the other hand, a person's capacity to gain redress for legal wrongs in the Courts should not depend on his or her ability to pay for legal representation. In seeking to balance these considerations, the Courts have been generally more reluctant to make orders for indemnity costs against self represented litigants than against legally represented litigants. (citations omitted)

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSCA 209" id="cs4">17 But as a general rule a court will be more reluctant to make an order for indemnity costs against a litigant in person than against a represented litigant. [22] The prevailing circumstances of the case might be such as to allow the Court to overcome this reluctance. [23] Robson J in Vink v Tuckwell [24] conveniently summarised the effect of the authorities dealing with circumstances in which a non-represented litigant might be subject to an order for indemnity costs as follows:

 [103] There are special considerations applying to indemnity cost orders against litigants in person, as the following authorities disclose. [104] In Bhagat v Royal and Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd , Hodgson CJ in Eq observed:
 ... I accept that a court does have to make allowances for the position of litigants in person, and to try to ensure that such a litigant does not lose out because of lack of expertise; although there is a limit to what the Court can do in that regard, while still remaining an impartial determinant of a dispute.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1403" id="cs5">61 Although this Court has expressed greater reluctance to order indemnity costs against an unrepresented litigant, it may do so: Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 8) [2006] FCA 1537 at [20] and [26] per Kenny J. In Salfinger v Niugini Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2007] FCA 1594 Heerey J relevantly observed:
 [7] In Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd [2006] FCA 1537 Kenny J at [26] recently noted that courts have from time to time overcome a reluctance to order indemnity costs against self-represented litigants: Bhagat v Global Custodians [2002] FCAFC 51 and Ogawa v The University of Melbourne (No 2) [2004] FCA 1275. Kenny J considered the competing interests in determining whether to make an award of indemnity costs against a self-represented litigant. A lack of knowledge of the law, unfamiliarity with court practice and a lack of objectivity are common traits of unrepresented litigants. A person's ability to get redress should not depend on lawyerly skills or an ability to pay for legal representation. However, the Court owes a duty to all parties to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair and timely fashion (at [28]) and without significant difficulties and unnecessary expense for the parties against whom an unrepresented litigant proceeds. see Bhagat v Royal  Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd [2000] NSWSC 159 at [13] per Hodgson CJ. ...
See also: Vink v Tuckwell (No 3) [2008] VSC 316 at [103] ---[108] per Robson J. 61 Although this Court has expressed greater reluctance to order indemnity costs against an unrepresented litigant, it may do so: Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No 8) [2006] FCA 1537 at [20] and [26] per Kenny J. In Salfinger v Niugini Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 4) [2007] FCA 1594 Heerey J relevantly observed:
 [7] In Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd [2006] FCA 1537 Kenny J at [26] recently noted that courts have from time to time overcome a reluctance to order indemnity costs against self-represented litigants: Bhagat v Global Custodians [2002] FCAFC 51 and Ogawa v The University of Melbourne (No 2) [2004] FCA 1275. Kenny J considered the competing interests in determining whether to make an award of indemnity costs against a self-represented litigant. A lack of knowledge of the law, unfamiliarity with court practice and a lack of objectivity are common traits of unrepresented litigants. A person's ability to get redress should not depend on lawyerly skills or an ability to pay for legal representation. However, the Court owes a duty to all parties to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair and timely fashion (at [28]) and without significant difficulties and unnecessary expense for the parties against whom an unrepresented litigant proceeds. see Bhagat v Royal  Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd [2000] NSWSC 159 at [13] per Hodgson CJ. ...
See also: Vink v Tuckwell (No 3) [2008] VSC 316 at [103] ---[108] per Robson J.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] VSC 316" id="cs6">107 Further in Salfinger v Niugini Mining (Australia) Pty Ltd (No.4), [84] Heerey J said as follows:

 In Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No.8), [85] Kenny J [86] recently noted that courts have from time to time overcome a reluctance to order indemnity costs against self-represented litigants: Bhagat v Global Custodians [87] and Ogawa v The University of Melbourne (No.2). [88] Kenny J considered the competing interests in determining whether to make an award of indemnity costs against a self-represented litigant. A lack of knowledge of the law, unfamiliarity with court practice and a lack of objectivity are common traits of unrepresented litigants. A person's ability to redress should not depend on lawyerly skills or an ability to pay for legal representation. However, the court owes a duty to all parties to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair and timely fashion [89] and without significant difficulties and unnecessary expense for the parties against whom an unrepresented litigant proceeds: see Bhagat v Royal and Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia. [90] In this instance the expense, delay and difficulties caused by the applicant's fraudulent and unreasonable behaviour overshadow any limitations that arose from his status as self-represented. [91]  106 In Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd (No.8), [81] Kenny J said:

 From time to time the courts overcome their reluctance to order indemnity costs against a self-represented litigant: see, for example, Bhagat v Global Custodians [82] and Ogawa v The University of Melbourne (No.2). [83] </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 2138" id="cs7">[15] Genovese No. 2 ; Bhagat v Global Custodians Limited [2002] FCA 223 at para. 57; Spalla v St George Motor Finance [2006] FCA 1537 at para. 21 per Kenny J. [16] Mr Engelter's Affidavit at para.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1594" id="cs8">7 In Spalla v St George Motor Finance Ltd [2006] FCA 1537 Kenny J at [26] recently noted that courts have from time to time overcome a reluctance to order indemnity costs against self-represented litigants: Bhagat v Global Custodians [2002] FCAFC 51 and Ogawa v The University of Melbourne (No 2) [2004] FCA 1275. Kenny J considered the competing interests in determining whether to make an award of indemnity costs against a self-represented litigant. A lack of knowledge of the law, unfamiliarity with court practice and a lack of objectivity are common traits of unrepresented litigants. A person's ability to get redress should not depend on lawyerly skills or an ability to pay for legal representation. However, the Court owes a duty to all parties to ensure that the trial is conducted in a fair and timely fashion (at [28]) and without significant difficulties and unnecessary expense for the parties against whom an unrepresented litigant proceeds. see Bhagat v Royal  Sun Alliance Life Assurance Australia Ltd [2000] NSWSC 159 at [13] per Hodgson CJ. In this instance the expense, delay and difficulties caused by the applicant's fraudulent and unreasonable behaviour overshadow any limitations that arose from his status as self-represented. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">appellant sells and promotes energy drink overseas using a mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">respondents commence using that mark in australia without licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">whether primary judge's approach to determining whether appellant's energy drink has reputation in australia was correct. held : it was not</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 181">matter be remitted to the primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">where applicant and respondent internet service providers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether applicant had established a reputation in the name "connect"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether use of the word "connect" in the respondent's logo a representation that the respondent is the applicant or that the respondent is affiliated with the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether manner in which word "connect" used in respondent's logo sufficient to distinguish respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether public likely to perceive respondent's logo as indicative of movement by applicant into new segment of the internet industry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether evidence of confusion  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether respondent's logo so nearly resembles applicant's trade marks so as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether use of the word "connect" in respondent's logo causes persons to wonder if source of the service is the applicant  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">application for indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether submissions made by applicant without substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2000] FCA 1148">whether evidence of intention by applicant to abandon use of the word "connect" in relation to retail services justifies special order for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">trade name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">essentially descriptive words</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">necessity for distinctive or secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">rationale</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">logic and policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">substantial evidence necessary to establish secondary meaning</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">mere expression of confusion or belief by individuals insufficient.  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">both parties successful on some issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">unsuccessful on others</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">discretion of trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 259">matter of impression and evaluation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">name similar to that of company with established business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 (3), 52 *, 80 **, 82 .  injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">interlocutory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 11">principles to be applied.   * trade practices act 1974 (cth), s, 52 is set out at p. 22, post.  ** the relevant provisions of s. 80 are set out at pp. 221-222, post.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1222">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1222">whether funds held pursuant to terminated deed of company arrangement are held for the benefit of deed creditors or property of the company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1222">direction that the funds be administered as the property of the company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 102">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 102">administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 102">administrator and administrator under a deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 102">remuneration of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 102">approval of prospective remuneration by reference to a scale of hourly rates, subject to a monetary cap</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 102">remuneration 'fixed'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">migration appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">appeal period</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification of the decision was in the "prescribed way" under migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 172">whether notification by pre-paid post means the person is taken to have received the document</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">registers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">register of members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">former members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">right to inspect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">company in administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">commercial litigation funder wishing to communicate with shareholders and former shareholders to invite participation in collective recovery action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">by way of proof of debt or class action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">administrators' approval withheld</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">declaration sought that proposed conduct lawful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">whether jurisdiction to entertain application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">whether a contradictor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">scope of restriction on use of information from company registers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">purpose of restriction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">scope of exemption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">position of commercial litigation funder</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">indistinguishable from position of providers of services relevant to status of shareholders as shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">proposed conduct not covered by exemption</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">application dismissed courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">judicial power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.22">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">whether a 'matter'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.23">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">relationship between jurisdiction and discretionary considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.24">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">whether contradictor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.25">cited from="[2004] FCA 1390">whether contradictor necessary to jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">business skills (residence) (class bh) visa, subclass 840 (business owner)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">appeal from a refusal of the migration review tribunal to grant visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">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="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 657">the effect of subss 494b(4) and 494c(4) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">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="cp5.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">re mcbain; ex parte australian catholic bishops conference  re mcbain; ex parte attorney-general (cth) ex rel australian episcopal conference of the roman catholic church  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">judicial power of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claims in court's original jurisdiction to certiorari for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in respect of concluded federal court litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants not parties to prior litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">no parties to prior litigation instituted appeal or sought constitutional relief in respect of the judgment in that litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants include commonwealth attorney-general seeking to affirm the operation of a state law as not inconsistent with federal law within the meaning of s 109 of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether claims give rise to a "matter" under ch iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether a matter arises under s 75(v) or s 76(i) of the constitution independently of the right of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether, if so, relief should be granted in the exercise of the court's discretion.  high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether court's original jurisdiction extends to claims to certiorari for non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in respect of concluded federal court litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">claimants not parties to prior litigation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether claims give rise to a "matter" under ch iii of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether a matter arises under s 75(v) or s 76(i) of the constitution independently of the right of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">exercise of discretion to provide such relief.  certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether available against a judge of a federal superior court in respect of non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">discretion to grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">whether attorney-general entitled to certiorari as of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">factors favouring discretionary refusal to grant certiorari in respect of non-jurisdictional error of law on the face of the record in litigation to which claimants were not parties.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application to extend time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application by commonwealth attorney-general on the relation of another for writ of certiorari instituted out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">factors favouring non-extension of time.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">intervention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">application by commonwealth attorney-general</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 16">intervention by attorney-general to put submissions partly at odds with submissions put by relator in name of attorney-general.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">australian securities and investments commission v edensor nominees pty ltd  courts and judges</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">federal courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court exercising federal or state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court had power to make orders pursuant to the corporations law of a state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether australian securities and investments commission "the commonwealth"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether remedies sought were "an injunction or declaration".  constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether federal court exercising federal or state jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 1">whether australian securities and investments commission "the commonwealth".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">trade practices act mergers and acquisitions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">meaning of "a corporation shall not acquire ... indirectly" in s. 50</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">relationship to s. 4(4)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether an acquisition through a subsidiary company is an indirect acquisition by a holding company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">discussion of the conflict between views expressed in australia meat holdings pty limited v. trade practices commission and trade practices commission v. australian iron  steel pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether s. 50 should be given a broad construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether the concept of indirect acquisition reflects learning on antitrust law in the united states or competition law in the european economic community</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">discussion of cases relevant to the question whether a foreign company can carry on business in australia by the agency or instrumentality of an australian subsidiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether an international business of acquisition of other businesses was being carried on</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether if such a business was being carried on the acquisition of an australian corporation's assets in the course of it would be "an acquisition in the ordinary course of business" within s. 4(4)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether s. 4(4)(b) reflects united states learning on s. 7 of the clayton act.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">leave to serve process outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether a prima facie case was shown within order 8 rule 2(2)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether it was open to a foreign corporation to challenge a grant of leave to serve process outside the jurisdiction without filing a conditional or any appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">discussion of english practice and practice under the service and execution of process act in respect of moving to set aside service without entering an appearance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">meaning of a prima facie case within order 8 rule 2(2)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether a prima facie case has to be shown in respect of each of several causes of action alleged</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">discussion of conflict in this regard between state of western australia v. vetter trittler pty ltd (in liq) (receiver and manager appointed) and tycoon holdings ltd v. trencor jetco inc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1993] FCA 496">whether it is open to a foreign corporation challenging the jurisdiction to raise pleading points as distinct from issues going to whether a prima facie case is shown.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">secondary boycott</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">contractors previously engaged or nominated by water board phased out as the result of industrial pressure brought to bear on board and minister by union representing men employed in board's day labour force</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">board a statutory body representing the crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">whether the grant of injunctive relief against the union and its officials would prejudicially affect the crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">bradken consolidated limited v. b.h.p. co. limited [1979] hca 15 ; (1979) 53 aljr 452</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">trade practices act 1974 , ss.45d, 4 (2).  crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">statutory body representing the crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">whether metropolitan water sewerage and drainage board (n.s.w.) an agency or emanation of the crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">whether trade practices act 1974 binds crown in right of state of new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">metropolitan water sewerage and drainage act 1924 (n.s.w.), particularly ss.7(2) and 117(3)  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">secondary boycott</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">conduct preventing acquisition of services</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">conduct affecting crown agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">effect on crown of granting relief of another party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">trade practices act not to affect crown</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1980] FCA 146">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss. 4 (2), 45d. the applicants were construction companies specializing in sewerage works. for years they had undertaken sewerage contracts for developers and governmental bodies. there existed a metropolitan water sewerage and drainage board (the board), the third respondent which controlled the performance of sewerage works. the board had a staff of day labourers who belonged to the wages division of the water and sewerage employees' union (the union). sewerage work funded by the board was generally undertaken by day labourers. that funded by developers or other government departments was generally subcontracted to private companies including the applicants.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">declarations as to constitutional validity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">whether "matter" before court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">whether law with respect to corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">whether law with respect to acquisition of property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">trade practices act 1974 , ss. 47 (9), 163a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1978] FCA 36">constitution , s. 51 (xx), (xxxi). the applicant ("tooths") brought proceedings before the full court by way of a case stated in which answers were sought to four questions. the first two questions were dealt with by the full court on 10th april, 1978 (re tooth  co. ltd. [1978] fca 10 ; (1978), 31 flr 314). the two questions remaining to be dealt with by the court were: "(c) whether it is within the jurisdiction conferred on this court by s. 163a of the said act (trade practices act 1974) or otherwise to make a declaration as to whether s. 47 (9) (a) of the said act is a valid exercise of the legislative power of the commonwealth. (d) if the answer to (c) is in the affirmative, whether s. 47 (9) (a) of the said act or any part thereof, is a valid exercise of the legislative power of the commonwealth."  section 47 (9) (a) of the trade practices act 1974 provides:   "(9) a corporation also engages in the practice of exclusive dealing if the corporation refuses to grant or renew, or exercises a power or right to terminate, a lease of, or a licence in respect of, land or a building or part of a building for the reason that another party to the lease or licence or, if that other party is a body corporate, a body corporate related to that body corporate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1978] FCA 10">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1978] FCA 10">declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1978] FCA 10">future and hypothetical questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1978] FCA 10">matters arising under the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1978] FCA 10">whether a real issue for determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1978] FCA 10">case stated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1978] FCA 10">trade practices act 1974 , ss.47 (9), (9) (a), 163a. the applicant ("tooths") sought declarations under s.163a of the trade practices act 1974 concerning the validity and the construction of s.47 (9) of the act.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">literary work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">reproduction of substantial part of work in a material form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">reproduction infringing copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">authorization of reproduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">coin operated photocopying machine in university library</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">whether invitation to users of library to infringe copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">whether reproduction authorized by university</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">copyright act 1968 (cth), ss. 31 (1) (a) (i), 36 (1), 40 , 49 .  declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">discretion of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">declaration of right made in general terms on unproved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[1975] HCA 26">need for real and not hypothetical question.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">mines and minerals (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">exploration licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">grant of licence "from" specified day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">when period commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">application to be made not later than one month before expiry of licence or renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether clear month</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">mining act, 1906 (as amended) (n.s.w.), ss. 46 (3), 83b (13).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">supreme court (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">equitable jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">declaration of right</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">extent of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether mining act, 1906 (n.s.w.) qualifies power to grant remedy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">equity act, 1901 (as amended) (n.s.w.), s. 10.*  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">construction and interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">commencement of licence "from" specified day</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">when term commences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">renewal of licence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">application to be made "not later than one month before expiry" of licence or renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">whether clear month</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">cited from="[1972] HCA 61">interpretation act, 1897 (n.s.w.), s. 35 (ii).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">goods subject to control of customs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">prohibition of supply of goods within airport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">goods sold at duty free shop and delivered to airport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">"supply"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">whether seller carried on business at airport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1972] HCA 19">airports (business concessions) act 1959 (cth), s. 7.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">application to review decision of delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">student (temporary) (class tu) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">request for information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">no information provided in prescribed time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 85">no power to extend time.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 85" id="cs0">There are a number of other decisions that have applied that interpretation of s.494C(4): SZBMF v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1427 ; [2005] FCA 1427 ; (2005) 147 FCR 485 (S.494C(4) ; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Manaf [2009] FCA 963 ; Swee Yen Tay v Migration Review Tribunal [2009] FCA 515 ; Swee Yen Tay v Migration Review Tribunal (No 2) [2009] FCA 591 ; Cao v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 586.  There is nothing to suggest that I should approach the interpretation of s.494C(5) differently to the settled approach to s.494C(4). Indeed, Besanko J in Swee Yen Tay v Migration Review Tribunal [2009] FCA 515 approached the interpretation of s.494C(5) in the same way as s.494C(4) was interpreted in Xie . That is to say, s.494C(5) does not create a rebuttable presumption about receipt of the relevant document, but rather deems the recipient to have received it by at a particular time. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 591" id="cs1">The background to the proceeding and the issues it raises are set out in my reasons dealing with an earlier notice of motion filed by the second respondent: Swee Yen Tay v Migration Review Tribunal [2009] FCA 515.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l1">ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l2">ELECTRONIC TRANSACTIONS ACT 1999 - SECT 14 Time of dispatch</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Declarations of right</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476 Jurisdiction of the Federal Magistrates Court</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494A Giving documents by Minister where no requirement to do so by section 494B method</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494B Methods by which Minister gives documents to a person</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 494C When a person is taken to have received a document from the Minister</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l15">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">application for interlocutory injunction to restrain unlawful industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">s 38 of the building construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">whether action taken was building industrial action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">whether action was based on a reasonable concern by employees about an imminent risk to health or safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">application of accessorial liability to union officers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">whether prima facie case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">no evidence of any imminent risk to any employee's health or safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2009] FCA 1092">injunction granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">respondents engaged in industrial action by failing to attend work without authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">continued to do so contrary to an order made by the australian industrial relation commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">threats made to continue to strike</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">consideration of terms used in the building construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">source of courts power to grant injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">serious issue to be tried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">effect on applicant of further industrial action significant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">respondents returning to work is not a reason not to grant an injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">other relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">balance of convenience strongly in favour of grant of injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 1629">injunction granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">whether "ban, limitation or restriction on the performance of building work" in paras (b) and (c) of the definition of "building industrial action" in s 36(1) of the building and construction industry improvement act 2005 (cth) covered only action of employees in respect of their work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">whether construed by reference to the meaning of "industrial action" in the workplace relations act 1996 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">"building industrial action" not limited to action of employees in respect of their work  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">no case to answer submission on parts of the case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">whether discretion should be exercised to depart from general rule requiring party to elect not to call further evidence prior to ruling</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">justice and convenience considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">no election required on statutory construction argument</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1292">election required before ruling on remaining parts of no case to answer submission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">penalties under part iv of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">statutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">construction of s. 80 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">appropriateness and form of a permanent injunction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">claim for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">order preventing dissipation of assets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">mareva injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">power to order provision of security for satisfaction of any judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 23">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s. 23.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">application for extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory discretionary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">whether decision attended with sufficient doubt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">whether substantial injustice if leave were refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">no substantive right determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">no prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 349">application dismissed.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 349" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 </title>
<title id="l1">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 38 Unlawful industrial action prohibited</title>
<title id="l2">BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY IMPROVEMENT ACT 2005 - SECT 49 Penalties etc. for contravention of civil penalty provision</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES 1979 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">whether letter sent by refugee review tribunal information for the purposes of s 424(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCAFC 109">whether procedures set out in s 424b of migration act applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">decision of minister's delegate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">protection visa sought on basis that appellant was a practitioner of falun gong</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate made adverse findings on credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">where minister's delegate failed to put information to the appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether denial of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether failure to have regard to information supplied by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether minister's delegate failed to consider future risk of harm to appellant in circumstances where appellant's claim to be an active proponent of falun gong in australia had been accepted. practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">fresh evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">new grounds</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 134">whether expedient in the interests of justice.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">application for protection visa by chinese nationals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">the decision of the refugee review tribunal affected by apprehended bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 328">also lack of satisfaction reached by the refugee review tribunal not lawful, but arbitrary and capricious.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">application for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">internal protection principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">well-founded fear of persecution not extending to whole country</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">relocation in country of nationality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">reasonableness of relocation alternative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1253">nature of inquiry decision-maker required to undertake.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">ground of appeal added by amendment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">allegation of technical invalidity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">effect of seeking new trial on different issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">interests of justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">limited public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 33">supreme court act 1970 (n.s.w.),s. 75a(6).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">issues</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">pleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">statement of claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">plea of authorship and ownership of copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">general traverse</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">defendant's case that copyright vested in partnership of which author a member</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no plea of assignment or transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">point not made issue by conduct at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">whether maintainable on appeal.  partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">acquisition from individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">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="cp7.16">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">transmission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">devolution by operation of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">partnership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">no express assignment of copyright by individual partners</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">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="cp7.21">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">confidential information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">tax minimization scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">know-how</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.25">cited from="[1982] HCA 33">scope of protection.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">review of a decision of refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether there was bias or the apprehension of bias on the part of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal denied the applicant a fair hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal failed to consider claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal's decision was illogical or irrational and was affected by wednesbury unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">whether the tribunal failed to consider that the applicant belonged to a particular social group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">no jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">citing from="[2011] FMCA 201">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">meaning of the "right to reside" within s 36(3) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">appellant a citizen of czech republic of roma ethnicity and citizen of european union</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">tribunal found appellant, as citizen of european union, had right to enter and reside in spain within the meaning of s 36(3) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">whether "right to reside" includes the right to participate in country's system of social welfare or a practical capacity to establish residence held : the right to enter and reside in s 36(3) does not include the right to receive social welfare</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">not a right to enter and reside comfortably in a country or entitlement to reside for any particular period migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">protection visas under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">whether finding that any period of unemployment that would be suffered by appellant in spain would be short lived not open to tribunal on the evidence held : tribunal's conclusion open to it on the evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">no jurisdictional error administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">whether tribunal failed to raise issues with appellant that had been depositive of the review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">citing from="[2010] FCAFC 97">appellant availed himself of the opportunity to advance materials and made submissions to support claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 223">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 223">leave to file an amended notice of appeal granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 223">inconsistencies in evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 223">findings as to credibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 223">claim that further time allowed to respond to tribunal concerns was inadequate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1271">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1271">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1271">no appellable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1271">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1265">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1265">appeal from federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1265">no appellable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1265">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 201" id="cs0">Contrary to the applicant's claims now, this account shows that the Tribunal asked very specific questions about the applicant's claims (see for example [45] at CB 133, [54], [56], [60] at CB 135 and [64] at CB 136 to [75] at CB 138). In any event, as the Minister submits, the questions to be asked are a matter for the Tribunal to assist in its assessment of the claims. I cannot see error in circumstances where the Tribunal sought to give shape and direction to the hearing to see whether it could reach the requisite level of satisfaction as to the merits of the claims such that the visa must then be granted ( SZGGD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1250). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCAFC 97" id="cs1">135 And in SZGGD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1250 at [20] , Barker J observed that it " is properly the function of the Tribunal, pursuant to s 425 of the Act, and as an inquisitorial body, to question an applicant about his or her claims. The Tribunal is entitled to control the direction of the hearing, including by asking questions in order to satisfy itself of the merits of the application ".</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 223" id="cs2">As was also concluded in SZGGD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1250 at [20] per Barker J, it " is properly the function of the Tribunal, pursuant to s 425 of the Act, and as an inquisitorial body, to question an applicant about his or her claims. The Tribunal is entitled to control the direction of the hearing, including by asking questions in order to satisfy itself of the merits of the application ". </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1478" id="cs3">As there was no unanimity between the parties about an adjournment the motions remained in the list for hearing on 30 October 2009. Counsel for the applicant pressed for an adjournment which was refused for reasons given ex tempore : Alcock v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 1250. Argument on the respondents' respective notices of motion then proceeded, on the basis that the applicant, whose representative indicated he was not prepared to be heard on the motions at that time, would file and serve written submissions on the motions by 4 December 2009. It is to the arguments advanced on the notices of motion to which I now turn. The current notices of motion
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1271" id="cs4">I agree with respect with the findings and observations of the Full Court in this regard. See also my reasons in SZGGD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1250 at [21] --- [38]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1265" id="cs5">I agree with respect with the findings and observations of the Full Court in this regard. See also my reasons in SZGGD v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 1250 at [21] --- [38]. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 56 Further information may be sought</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 415 Powers of Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 418 Secretary to be notified of application for review by Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l4">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 422B Exhaustive statement of natural justice hearing rule</title>
<title id="l5">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 423 Documents to be given to the Refugee Review Tribunal</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424 Tribunal may seek information</title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424B Requirements for written invitation etc.</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 429A Oral evidence by telephone etc.</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 430 Refugee Review Tribunal to record its decisions etc.</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 441A Methods by which Tribunal gives documents to a person other than the Secretary</title>
<title id="l13">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l14">MIGRATION REGULATIONS 1994 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 471B Stay of proceedings and suspension of enforcement process</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>