Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">substantial identity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">goods of the same description</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">obstacle to use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">discretion not to remove trade mark even though non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">use " in good faith "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">no special facts or circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 934">evidence of internet search</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">representations of sole and shape marks registered as trade marks in respect of footwear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">whether rival vendor used shoes as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">meaning of use as a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">whether goods themselves can constitute a trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">whether the mark must have a separate identity from that of the goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">functional and non-functional considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">whether features of shape bear any relation to the function to be performed by the nature of the goods trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">representations of sole and shape marks registered in respect of footwear</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">whether infringement by rival vendor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">whether rival's shoes substantially identical or deceptively similar to registered marks trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">application for removal of marks from register on ground that not capable of distinguishing proprietor's goods from those of another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">meaning of 'distinguish'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2008] FCA 605">application for removal on ground that applicant not owner of mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">ownership</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">first use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">combination mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether goods "of the same kind"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether word mark sufficiently distinctive to identify goods  passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether appellant raised geographical limitation of use before primary judge evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">evidential onus of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 184">whether primary judge's conclusions on evidence matters of impression</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">gregory winfield hall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">first plaintiff (2032/04, 2685/04)philip patrick carter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st plaintiff (2032/04), 2nd plaintiff (2685/04)reynolds wines ltd (rm appointed) (in liq)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">2nd plaintiff (2032/04), 2nd respondent (2685/04), 1st plaintiff (4870/05)reynolds vineyards pty ltd (rm app) (in liq)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">3rd plaintiff (2032/04), 2nd plaintiff (4870/05)peter renwick poolman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st defendant (2032/04), 1st respondent (2685/04)malcolm geoffrey irving</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">2nd defendant/cross claimant (2032/04), 2nd respondent/applicant (2685/04)constance helen poolman</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">3rd defendant (2032/04), defendant (4870/05)kalivise pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">4th defendant (2032/04)sennabeau pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">5th defendant (2032/04)morecraft kitchens  joinery pty ltd</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">6th defendant (2032/04)john giske martini</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st cross defendant/cross claimant (2032/04), 3rd respondent (2685/04)rupert clifton-bligh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">2nd cross defendant (2032/04), 1st respondent (2685/04)sandra lee yates</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">1st cross defendant (2032/04), 4th respondent (2032/04)commissioner of taxation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2007] NSWSC 1330">defendant/applicant (2685/04)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">infringement of registered trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">importing and selling goods packaged in counterfeit packaging constitutes 'use' of trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">construction of trade mark specifications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">meaning of "consumables"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">defence of consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">insufficient evidence to establish chain of supply started with manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">consent of registered owner, not related entity in corporate group, must be acquired. trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">misleading and deceptive conduct and false representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">importing and selling goods packaged in counterfeit packaging is misleading and deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">intention not relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">importing and selling goods packaged in counterfeit packaging constitutes passing off. trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">liability for sale of good not of merchantable quality</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 1490">evidence of defectiveness required.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">compensatory damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">exemplary damages not available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">heads of compensatory damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">loss of sales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">trade mark proprietor accustomed to receive royalties or licence fees rather than proceeds of sale of product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">absence of evidence as to royalties or licence fees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">evidence within the knowledge of the applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">inappropriateness of speculation or guess work in assessment of damages under this head</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">devaluation of product</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">absence of any principled explanation of market devaluation mechanism</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">necessity for rational approach to devaluation assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.14">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">loss of reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.15">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">absence of evidence of loss of reputation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.16">cited from="[2006] FCA 1431">no rational basis upon which loss of reputation could be inferred</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">judge : redlich j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 31 october, 6-7, 10, 17-21, 24-28 november, 1-5, 8-12, 15-17, 19 december 2003, 29 march</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">1 april 2004, 8 may, 5, 22, 29 september, 15 december 2006 date of judgment : 13 april 2006 date of orders : 15 december 2006 case may be cited as : pegela pty ltd  ors v national mutual life association of australasia ltd medium neutral citation : [2006] vsc 507</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">judge : redlich j where held : melbourne dates of hearing : 31 october, 6-7, 10, 17-21, 24-28 november, 1-5, 8-12, 15-17, 19 december 2003, 29 march</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">1 april 2004, 8 may, 5, 22, 29 september, 15 december 2006 date of judgment : 13 april 2006 date of orders : 15 december 2006 case may be cited as : pegela pty ltd  ors v national mutual life association of australasia ltd medium neutral citation : [2006] vsc 507</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">investment linked life insurance policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">construction of terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether special terms negotiated on plaintiffs' behalf created right to make arbitrage profits at the defendant's expense through switching of investments between portfolios</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">relevance of opinion evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">relevance of parties' reasonable expectations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">implied terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">rectification  agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether parties who negotiated terms were defendant's agents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">actual and ostensible authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">deemed agency under insurance agents and brokers act 1984 (cth) s.12  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether defendant estopped from denying that the plaintiffs could utilise the terms to engage in arbitrage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether defendant's conduct induced assumption that it's pricing methodology would remain consistent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">duty to inform plaintiffs of change in pricing policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">estopped raised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.19">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">extent of equitable relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.20">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">plaintiffs entitled to damages in lieu of reasonable notice as the minimum equity raised by the defendant's conduct  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.21">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.22">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">silence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.23">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether defendant aware of relevant assumptions made by plaintiffs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.24">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">defendant's failure to inform plaintiffs of change in pricing policy constituted misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.25">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">trade practices act 1974 (cth) s.52  insurance law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.26">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">statutory duty to act in good faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.27">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">insurance contracts act 1984 (cth) s.13</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.28">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether plaintiffs had a duty to disclose their intention to engage in arbitrage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.29">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether defendant aware of this intention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.30">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">market linked investment portfolios</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.31">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">defendant's right to dilute the unit price of plaintiffs' investments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.32">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">defendant's right to segregate plaintiffs' investments from those of other policyholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.33">cited from="[2006] VSC 507">whether contrary to provisions of the life insurance act 1995 (cth) or the insurance contracts act 1984 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 246">designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 246">appellant and respondent competitors in market for locking systems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 246">claim that respondent's registered designs invalid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 246">registration of designs a consideration for consumers in the market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 246">whether appellant a "person aggrieved" or a "person interested"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1307">microsoft mozart for windows</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1307">the dissonant quartet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">deceptive similarity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">whether aural use of 'crazy ron' infringed a registered composite trade mark which included the words 'crazy john'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">whether 'crazy john' an essential feature of the registered markintellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">amendment of particulars of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 196">whether s 65(5) of the trade marks act 1995 (cth) authorises amendment of an application which names the wrong person as the owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">boral besser masonry limited (now boral masonry ltd) v australian competition and consumer commission  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">predatory pricing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">market definition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">concrete masonry products market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">close substitutability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">whether appellant had substantial degree of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">recoupment of losses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">analysis of market structure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">market share</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">barriers to entry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">whether barriers to entry created by practices and policies of incumbent firms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">pricing behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">increase in supply capacity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">whether taking advantage of a substantial degree of market power for a proscribed purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">legislative purpose of trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">relevance of market economic conditions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">relevance of purpose of damaging a competitor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 5">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 46(1) , (3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 277">breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 277">damages for loss or account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 277">time for election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 277">damages plus restitutionary orders granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 277">no further order for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 277">leave nunc pro tunc to proceed against company in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[2002] NSWSC 277">leave to amend statement of claim on application made in address in reply.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1455">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1455">application for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1455">appeal from registrar's refusal to register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1455">nature of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1455">settlement of proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1455">assignment of application to respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1455">jurisdiction of court to direct registrar to register respondent as proprietor of mark.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">overhead costs of infringer whether deductible in determining profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 54">composite product wether profit on sale of whole or of part.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">infringement of word mark "polo" by the use of a mark "polo club"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">whether sale of the same goods by the rival trader in stores of an allegedly quite different standard avoided infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">test for infringement of a case of this kind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">defence under s. 62(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">whether the defence focuses on a more restricted circle of facts than is required to be considered for the purposes of infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">construction of s. 62(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">cross-claim alleging the mark is a surname and cannot be distinctive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">cross-claim alleging non-use for three years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.9">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">whether use on a few occasions is sufficient to answer cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.10">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">onus of proof and effect of prima facie case established by reputable persons in the trade not having heard of the mark, although other evidence established the mark was actually being used by a different company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.11">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">whether in answer to a case under s. 23(1)(b) the registered proprietor may rely on use of the trade mark, not directly by himself or a registered user, but by an unregistered licensee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.12">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">use of trade mark as a house mark by a group of companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.13">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">the effect and construction of s. 23(2) and discussion of the test as to whether goods are "goods of the same description"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.14">cited from="[1993] FCA 203">discussion of discretion under s. 23.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">failure to inform</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">borrower unable to pay third party under building contract because merchant bank withdrew finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">builder continued work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether merchant bank under duty to inform builder it would not be paid.  contracts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">general principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">anticipatory breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether contract required developer to make future payments for building work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether lack of financing "wholly and finally disabled" developer from performing.  estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">general principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether applicant under mistake as to legal rights.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">restitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether unjust enrichment sufficient to found claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">cited from="[1992] FCA 582">whether applicant under mistake as to legal rights.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 60">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 60">rectification of register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 60">expunging mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 60">mark "likely to deceive or cause confusion" not to be registered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 60">whether mark becoming deceptive or confusing after registration removable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 60">whether blameworthy conduct on part of proprietor required for removal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 60">trade marks act 1955 (cth), ss. 22, 28, 56(1), 61(1)(b).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">whether loss of distinctiveness per se is a ground for removal of trade mark from register</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">construction and operation of s.28 of trademarks act 1955</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">whether lack of distinctiveness is a characteristic of a trade mark to which s.28 is directed.  non-use of mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">action to rectify register to remove trade mark for non-use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">equitable defence of acquiescence.  assignment of trade mark</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">assignment without goodwill.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">cited from="[1990] FCA 32">whether intentional elements of conduct may render it deceptive conduct even though the conduct viewed objectively would only be confusing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">exemplary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">tort arising out of use of vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.3">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">behaviour</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.4">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">contumelious not malicious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.5">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">vehicle compulsorily insured against injury to third party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.6">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">whether insurance bar to recovery of exemplary damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.7">cited from="[1987] HCA 47">motor vehicles (third party insurance) act 1942 (n.s.w.), ss. 7(1) , 10 (1), (7), 15(1), 18 (1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">joint tortfeasors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">common law rule requiring single judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">whether abolished by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">whether separate judgments may be different amounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">exemplary damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">judgment for exemplary damages against one tortfeasor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">law reform (miscellaneous provisions) act 1946 (n.s.w.), s. 5(1).  damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">exemplary damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">jury verdict</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp25.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 12">function in review of verdict for exemplary damages.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.0">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.1">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.2">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">representation that corporation has sponsorship or affiliation it does not have</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.3">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">analysis of complex evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.4">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.5">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">whether on findings of primary judge he was bound to make an award of damages no matter that the exercise was speculative  trade practices act 1974 , ss. 52 and 53 (d).  copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.6">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">artistic work commissioned by second appellant in new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.7">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">author resident in new zealand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.8">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">whether second appellant owner of work</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp26.9">cited from="[1984] FCA 373">whether second appellant a competent applicant to sue for infringement of copyright.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">rent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">option for renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">rent for new term to be agreed and failing agreement fixed by nominated arbitrator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">new rent not to be less than rent in last year of first term</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">whether concluded agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">exercise of option</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">refusal to grant new lease</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.9">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">specific performance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.10">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">entitlement before rent fixed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.11">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">form of decree</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp27.12">cited from="[1982] HCA 53">implied term that parties do what was necessary to procure nomination of arbitrator.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp28.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">infringement of trade marks</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">determining an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">meaning of good faith for the purpose of s 92(4) of the trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.5">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">some sales not in breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.6">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">insufficient evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.7">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">whether an infringing party can claim remuneration or director's fees for carrying on the infringing activities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.8">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">whether there was a failure to take into account evidence as to the proportion of infringing and non-infringing goods  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.9">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.10">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.11">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">passing off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp36.12">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 7">whether a claim with respect to non-infringing sales arising from a prior relationship is made out</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] ATMO 102" id="cs0">The choice of forum and grounds for this matter are thus inappropriate. In Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 970 Gordon J stated at paragraph 8:
Having considered the evidence led, and submissions made, I was poised to answer that question in the affirmative and uphold the appeal, on the basis that "good faith" for the purposes of s 92(4) requires no more than genuine intent to use a mark for commercial purposes; it does not involve any element of honesty or subjective good intentions: see generally E  J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 934 at [187] - [192] (examining the meaning of "good faith" under related provisions of the TMA). However, during the course of the hearings it became apparent that what LE 2003 really wanted, and should have applied for in the first place, was the expungement of the registrations by Edwards under s 88 of the TMA on the basis that Edwards was not the owner of the unregistered marks: ss 52 and 58 of the TMA. I therefore delayed giving judgment in VID 934 of 2006 so that a separate application could be brought on that basis and the matters resolved together. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] ATMO 65" id="cs1">It is questionable whether or not this evidence goes to the 'good faith' of the opponent, given the interpretation of the expression by the Federal Court. Mr. Ziehlke referred to previous decisions of the Registrar including Bunter v Hoborama LLC [13] and Edwards v Liquid Engineering [14] . However, the interpretation of the expression 'in good faith' favoured in those decisions before the Registrar have been superseded by the comments in the Federal Court appeal to the latter case [15] , where it was said (emphasis added):
...I was poised to answer that question in the affirmative and uphold the appeal, on the basis that "good faith" for the purposes of s 92(4) requires no more than genuine intent to use a mark for commercial purposes; it does not involve any element of honesty or subjective good intentions : see generally E  J Gallo Winery v Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 934 at [187] - [192]...
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] ATMO 58" id="cs2">This purpose was again confirmed in Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd. [9] During the hearing of the current matter there was some discussion between the parties regarding the facts surrounding the appeal to the Full Federal Court in Liquideng Farm Supplies Pty Ltd v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [10] and whether those facts are analogous to this matter. While I agree that the facts of the current matter can be distinguished from those in Liquideng, the overall principles addressed by Justice Gordon in the Federal Court and subsequently by the Full Bench on appeal, are still applicable. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] ATMO 41" id="cs3"/>
<sentence from="[2010] ATMO 17" id="cs4">Mr Bebber's interpretation of where Gordon J's words left the question of what is really meant by the term 'good faith' in section 92 , while debatable even in isolation, does not survive the clear observations which had at that time already been made upon the matter by the Full Federal Court, on appeal, in Liquideng Farm Supplies Pty Ltd v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd. [10] Mr Bebber did not refer in his submissions, to the words of Justices Tamberlin, Sundberg and Besanko. They began, at para 9:
 The appeal before her Honour first came on for hearing on 3 May 2007. Her Honour noted that the principal question then presented in those proceedings was whether evidence of a bona fide intention to use a mark for trading purposes was sufficient to demonstrate good faith within the meaning of s 92(4) of the Act, even when the applicant for registration gained knowledge of the mark as an employee of the owner of the unregistered mark, in circumstances tending to suggest a breach of fiduciary duty. Her Honour stated that, having considered the evidence, she would have upheld the appeal on the basis that, contrary to the submissions of the respondent, "good faith" for the purposes of s 92(4) required no more than a genuine intent to use the mark for commercial purposes as opposed to a token use or use for an ulterior purpose, and did not involve any element of honesty or subjective good intention. See Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 970 at [8] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] ATMO 21" id="cs5">The judgement in Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 970 also dealt with the issue of good faith. In that matter Justice Gordon stated; '[G]ood faith for the purposes of section 92(4) requires no more than genuine intent to use a mark for commercial purposes; it does not involve any element of honesty or subjective good intentions'. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 7" id="cs6">The appeal before her Honour first came on for hearing on 3 May 2007. Her Honour noted that the principal question then presented in those proceedings was whether evidence of a bona fide intention to use a mark for trading purposes was sufficient to demonstrate good faith within the meaning of s 92(4) of the Act, even when the applicant for registration gained knowledge of the mark as an employee of the owner of the unregistered mark, in circumstances tending to suggest a breach of fiduciary duty. Her Honour stated that, having considered the evidence, she would have upheld the appeal on the basis that, contrary to the submissions of the respondent, "good faith" for the purposes of s 92(4) required no more than a genuine intent to use the mark for commercial purposes as opposed to a token use or use for an ulterior purpose, and did not involve any element of honesty or subjective good intention. See Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 970 at [8] . </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] ATMO 1" id="cs7">The position of trade mark registrant as constructive trustee for the proper owner of the mark was most recently considered by the Federal Court in the Edwards v. Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 970 where Gordon J. said that
where an application for registration is made by other than the true owner, the Court may rectify the situation by imposing a constructive trust on the application and subsequent registration from the date on which the application was lodged and additionally or alternatively rectify the Register through substitution of the true owner's name. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] ATMO 89" id="cs8">After the hearing was conducted, the opponent's legal representatives wrote to me to bring to my attention the recent decision of Edwards v Liquid Engineering 2003 Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 970 (" Edwards "). I sought submissions from the parties, and responses to each other's submissions before deciding on a course of action. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l2">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l3">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 7 Use of trade mark</title>
<title id="l4">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 9 Definition of applied to and applied in relation to</title>
<title id="l5">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 10 Definition of deceptively similar</title>
<title id="l6">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 27 Application--how made</title>
<title id="l7">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 42 Trade mark scandalous or its use contrary to law</title>
<title id="l8">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 52 Opposition</title>
<title id="l9">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 58 Applicant not owner of trade mark</title>
<title id="l10">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 60 Trade mark similar to trade mark that has acquired a reputation in Australia</title>
<title id="l11">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 88 Amendment or cancellation--other specified grounds</title>
<title id="l12">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 89 Rectification may not be granted in certain cases if registered owner not at fault etc.</title>
<title id="l13">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 92 Application for removal of trade mark from Register etc.</title>
<title id="l14">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 104 Appeal</title>
<title id="l15">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 120 When is a registered trade mark infringed?</title>
<title id="l16">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 122 When is a trade mark not infringed?</title>
<title id="l17">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 123 Goods etc. to which registered trade mark has been applied by or with consent of registered owner</title>
<title id="l18">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 124 Prior use of identical trade mark etc.</title>
<title id="l19">TRADE MARKS ACT 1995 - SECT 129 Groundless threats of legal proceedings</title>
<title id="l20">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l21">FAIR TRADING ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l22">Fair Trading Act 1999 - SECT 9 Application of Australian Consumer Law</title>
<title id="l23">Fair Trading Act 1999 - SECT 12 Interpretation of Australian Consumer Law</title>
<title id="l24">PENALTY INTEREST RATES ACT 1983 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 389">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 389">application by the plaintiff for leave to re-open after the hearing but before judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 389">no new evidentiary material of any substance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 389">existing evidence and arguments presented in a different way</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 389">leave to re-open refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 389">part of the material received as a submission only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">mortgages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">mortgagee's power of sale under the general law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">mortgagee's power of sale under s 78 of the land titles act 1980 (tas)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">extent of obligation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">whether mortgagee exercised power of sale in good faith</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">interests of the mortgagor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">whether obligation to get 'best price'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">whether mortgagee guilty of unconscionable conduct  statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">meaning of s 78 of the land titles act 1980 (tas) costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 57">when an indemnity costs order is appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] spencer constructions pty ltd v g  m aldridge pty ltd [1997] fca 681 (29 july 1997)   corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">insolvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">application to set aside statutory demand to pay debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">consideration of s 459j</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">defects in relation to the demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">distinguished from defects in the demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">substantial injustice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">some other reason</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">affidavit accompanying demand served in nsw complied with form specified in rules of supreme court of victoria</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">whether defect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">whether sufficient that affidavit complies with the rules of any court having jurisdiction in respect of the demand or winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1997] FCA 681">whether genuine dispute about existence of debt.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">application to set aside statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether offsetting claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">requirement that court be "satisfied" of existence of a "genuine" claim by way of counter claim, set-off or cross-demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">creditor serving demand, as mortgagee entering into put-and-call option in respect of mortgaged properties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether company has a claim before put option or call option is exercised</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">necessity for offsetting claim to be quantifiable in money terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether court has power to extend time allowed for making of application to set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether "defect" in statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">statutory demand relating to two or more debts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether statutory demand must specify the separate debts and the amounts of them</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1995] FCA 1208">whether "substantial injustice" caused if statutory demand not set aside.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1989] FCA 486">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1989] FCA 486">validity of bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1989] FCA 486">whether amount in district court judgment and bankruptcy notice exceeded amount in fact due</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1989] FCA 486">whether open to court of bankruptcy to "go behind" district court judgment.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">res judicata</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">issue estoppel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">hire of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">contractual indemnity by hirer against loss caused to owner from use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">action for damages against hirer and owner arising out of use of plant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">notices of contribution between hirer and owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">claim of contribution by owner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">apportionment of liability between defendants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">subsequent action by owner for indemnity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">whether estopped by failure in original action to plead indemnity in defence to the claim for contribution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 45">wrongs act 1958 (vict.) s. 24 (1) (c).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">whether a creditor's statutory demand for payment of debt made pursuant to s 459e of the corporations act 2001 (cth) should be set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">whether, in the circumstances of the case, there was any genuine dispute as to the existence or the amount of the claimed debt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">whether there was any offsetting claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">whether there was any other reason to set aside the demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">no reason to set aside the demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">application dismissed with costs   legislation: corporations act 2001 (cth), ss 9 , 46</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 379">51, 459e , 459g , 459h , 459j</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 250">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 250">whether applications made pursuant to s 459g of the corporations act 2001 (cth) ( the act ) to set aside two creditor's statutory demands were made within the time limited by s 459g(2) of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 250">discussion of the effect of s 29 of the acts interpretation act 1901 (cth) and s 160 of the evidence act 1955 (cth) on the court's determination of the date of service of several creditor's statutory demands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 250">whether there is a genuine dispute about the existence or amount of the debts claimed in several creditor's statutory demands</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 250">whether the lawyers for the plaintiff in two sets of proceedings were validly retained</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 250">whether lawyers whose retainer is successfully challenged should pay the costs of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">whether act of bankruptcy within six months of petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">interpretation of order extending time for compliance with bankruptcy notice until "first return date" of notice of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">whether "first return date" was date of appeal index conference before registrar or later call-over before judge  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">sequestration order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">whether debtor able to pay debts within meaning of bankruptcy act 1996 (cth) s 52(2)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 186">whether sequestration order ought not be made for "other sufficient cause" within meaning of s 52(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1013">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1013">application for stay of proceedings pursuant to sequestration order until determination of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1013">application for return of passports from trustee and permission to travel overseas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">creditor's petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">act of bankruptcy within six months of petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">interpretation of order extending bankruptcy notice until 'first return date' of notice of appeal from refusal to set aside notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">whether expired at appeal index conference or later call-over</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">claims against bank for selling security at an undervalue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">assessment of merits and prospects of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">no sufficient cause for dismissing or adjourning petition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FMCA 623">sequestration order made.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">appeal from dismissal of an application by judgment debtor pursuant to s 459g of the corporations act 2001 (cth) to set aside creditor's statutory demand</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">where judgment obtained by default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">whether primary judge erred in determining no "genuine dispute" within the meaning of s 469h(1)(a) of the corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FCAFC 169">whether primary judge erred in concluding there was no offsetting claim within the meaning of s 459h(1)(b) of the corporations act</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 379" id="cs0">In BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 404 at [63] ---[66], I endeavoured to summarise the relevant authorities as to the meaning of "genuine dispute" for the purposes of s 459H(1)(a) of the Act. I said: For s 459H(1)(a) to be engaged, the Court must be satisfied that there is a genuine dispute about the existence or about the amount of the debt. In order for a dispute of that kind to be raised, there must be more than the mere assertion of a dispute or the mere making of a claim (per Lindgren J in Rohalo Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd v RP Scherer SpA  Pharmagel SpA (1994) 15 ACSR 347 , (1994) 13 ACLC 94 at 352/30---354/15, esp at 353/20---25).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 250" id="cs1">In BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 404 , at [63]---[66], I said: For s 459H(1)(a) to be engaged, the Court must be satisfied that there is a genuine dispute about the existence or about the amount of the debt. In order for a dispute of that kind to be raised, there must be more than the mere assertion of a dispute or the mere making of a claim (per Lindgren J in Rohalo Pharmaceutical Pty Ltd v RP Scherer SpA  Pharmagel SpA (1994) 15 ACSR 347 , (1994) 13 ACLC 94 at 352/30---354/15, esp at 353/20---25). The dispute must have an objective existence the genuineness of which is capable of being assessed ( Rohalo 15 ACSR 347 , 13 ACLC 94 at 353/17---25).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 186" id="cs2">The facts are summarised in the judgment of the federal magistrate. The summary is largely derived, as his Honour acknowledged, from the judgment of Foster J in BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Ltd (No. 2) [2009] FCA 404 , which was upheld by the Full Court in Watts v Adelaide Bank Limited [2009] FCAFC 169. It is convenient to reproduce the summary as none of the facts included in it is disputed.

 [5] In short, the Bank lent money to BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd ("BMG") under two loan agreements entered into in 2004. Moreover, the statement that it was the bank that did not allow the matter to proceed to contract is wrong. This was a matter considered in the proceeding before Foster J: BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Ltd (No. 2) [2009] FCA 404 [23]-[33]. The federal magistrate observed:

 [48] ...[T]he evidence before Foster J showed that the prospective purchaser, Mr Campbell, never became willing to execute an agreement to purchase the property at that price, in circumstances which are set out in the judgment of Foster J from [23]-[33]. Counsel for the Bank also pointed out that there was a caveat on the title at the time of Mr and Mrs Watts' negotiations with Mr Campbell, which it appears neither Mr Watts nor the Bank was able or willing to remove to allow the proposed contract to be attractive to Mr Campbell at that time.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1013" id="cs3">The application to set aside the statutory demand on BMG, referred to in the FMC reasons at [9], was heard in this Court by Foster J who declined to set aside the statutory demand in a judgment delivered on 24 April 2009: BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Limited; In the Matter of BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 404. In that proceeding, BMG and Mr and Mrs Watts contended, amongst other things, that they had offsetting claims against the respondent exceeding the amount claimed in the statutory demand, based on an allegation that the respondent had sold the Drummoyne property at an undervalue. Foster J considered this contention in his reasons for judgment at [85]-[90] and concluded that it was without merit. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 623" id="cs4">The outstanding application to set aside the statutory demand on BMG was heard by Foster J on 10 December 2008, and his Honour gave judgment on 24 April 2009 (see BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Limited; In the Matter of BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 404). Foster J set out the history of the matter up to that time, including extracts from the reasoning of the Supreme Court justices, before explaining his reasons for declining to set aside the demand.  The indebtedness of Mr and Mrs Watts to the Bank arises in circumstances which have been detailed in several previous judgments. In particular, I would gratefully adopt the recitation of the background found in the judgment of Foster J in BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Limited; In the Matter of BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 404. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCAFC 169" id="cs5">The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 419 of 2009

 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT

 BETWEEN: BHOJI WATTS
 First Appellant

 GAMBHIR WATTS
 Second Appellant AND: ADELAIDE BANK LIMITED ACN 061 461 550
 Respondent

 JUDGES: LINDGREN, GILMOUR AND JAGOT JJ DATE: 3 DECEMBER 2009 PLACE: SYDNEY

 IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
 GENERAL DIVISION NSD 421 of 2009

 ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT

 BETWEEN: BMG POSEIDON CORP PTY LIMITED ACN 058 909 256
 Appellant AND: ADELAIDE BANK LIMITED ACN 061 461 550
 Respondent

 JUDGES: LINDGREN, GILMOUR AND JAGOT JJ DATE: 3 DECEMBER 2009 PLACE: SYDNEY

 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
 THE COURT:

 BACKGROUND

1 These reasons for judgment relate to two appeals against decisions of single judges of this Court. 2 The first decision, BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Limited; In the Matter of BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 404 , is that of Foster J delivered on 24 April 2009. Foster J dismissed an application by BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd ( BMG ) to set aside a creditor's statutory demand for payment of a debt dated 21 August 2007 and which the Adelaide Bank ( the Bank ) had served on BMG ( the statutory demand ).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 420" id="cs6">Secondly, Foster J has recently examined the facts and circumstances which led to the default judgment and the sale of the property ( BMG v Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd v Adelaide Bank Limited; In the Matter of BMG Poseidon Corp Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 404). His Honour traced the course of events in detail. It is not necessary that I should do so again. In any event, his Honour apparently had the benefit of a much more detailed explanation of the facts than has been attempted before me. His Honour rejected an application to set aside a statutory demand made against BMG which was founded on the judgment entered on 3 April 2006. His Honour rejected arguments which were, in substance, to the same effect as the first contention advanced in the present proceedings. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459E Creditor may serve statutory demand on company</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459G Company may apply</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459H Determination of application where there is a dispute or offsetting claim</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 459J Setting aside demand on other grounds</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT (CORPORATIONS) RULES 2000 </title>
<title id="l8">REAL PROPERTY ACT 1900 </title>
<title id="l9">REAL PROPERTY ACT 1900 - SECT 57 Procedure on default</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 9">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 9">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 9">appeal from decision of federal magistrate dismissing application for judicial review of refugee review tribunal's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 9">where appellant alleged politically motivated false charges made against him and provided charge sheet to tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 9">where tribunal found no evidence that charge was politically motivated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 9">where tribunal did not accept appellant had a prominent role in community or politics</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCAFC 9">whether tribunal failed to have regard to contents of charge sheet</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">szbel v minister for immigration and multicultural and indigenous affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">protection visa decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant claimed he feared persecution on basis of his conversion to christianity if returned to iran</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">delegate of the first respondent refused to grant appellant protection visa because not satisfied of the genuineness of appellant's conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">review by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant invited by tribunal to give evidence relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">appellant gave evidence addressed to the delegate's concern regarding the genuineness of his conversion to christianity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant a protection visa on the basis that appellant's claims were not credible</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether tribunal failed to notify the appellant adequately of the issues to which its reasoning processes were directed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 63">whether failure of tribunal to ask the appellant to address issues that it considered might be important amounted to a denial of procedural fairness.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s154/2002  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal misled applicant into believing factual claim had been accepted as true</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal relied on evidence tendered earlier to disbelieve factual claim without giving applicant opportunity to demonstrate evidence was not inconsistent with factual claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether tribunal relied on belated disclosure of rape incident to disbelieve factual claim in circumstances where belated disclosure might have been explicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether subsequent hearing and provision of written submissions cured any earlier breach of requirements of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">inquisitorial hearing by tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 60">whether failure by tribunal to afford procedural fairness amounting to jurisdictional error.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte applicant s20/2002  appellant s106/2002 v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">temporary protection visas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">application for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">where refugee review tribunal found that applicant was an unreliable witness and discounted evidence said to be corroborative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was affected by actual bias or by a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was vitiated by jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">distinction between discretionary decisions and decisions involving the finding of facts essential to the exercise of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision evidenced an erroneous approach to the finding of jurisdictional facts.  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">section 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">review of administrative decisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">extent to which the content of the constitutional writs is affected by common law developments in administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">availability of constitutional writs in proceedings that include an appeal concerning related issues.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal's decision was "irrational, illogical and not based upon findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">unavailability of review of factual or evidentiary merits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether relief available under migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ") or under the constitution , s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether tribunal had no jurisdiction to make the decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was not authorised by the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was marred by error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2003] HCA 30">whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable tribunal would have made it.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">rules of the supreme court 1971 (wa) , o 56 r 3administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">application for a writ of certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">whether minister of local government acted lawfully in suspending local council</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">whether the minister for local government is required to afford procedural fairness to the applicant councillors before suspension under part 8 of the local government act 1995 (wa) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">prerogative writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">application for a writ of prohibition to prohibit inquiry panel established by minister of local government, pursuant to s 8.20 of local government act 1995 (wa) , from proceeding to hear inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">whether conduct of members of inquiry panel gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2001] WASC 276">turns on own facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">re minister for immigration and multicultural affairs; ex parte epeabaka  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">affirmation by refugee review tribunal of decision to refuse application for protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">public statements made by tribunal member on personal internet home page about truthfulness of applicants for refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether pt 7 of migration act 1958 (cth) constitutes a code excluding the common law rules of natural justice and in particular the ostensible bias rule.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">reasonable apprehension of bias</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether a reasonable party or member of the public might apprehend that decision of tribunal member was affected by a prejudiced mind</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 23">whether ostensible bias may be inferred from statements made after a decision.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">discretionary power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">right to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">requirement of procedural fairness in initial licence grant process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">distinction between initial grant and renewal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">evaluation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evaluation based upon materials supplied by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">need to identify critical issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">third party materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">opportunity to rebutt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">consistent with admissions by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">improper exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether fettered by rule of policy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether evidence of rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">refusal of licence to retail "x" videos</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.17">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">revenue raising statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.18">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">fit and proper person requirement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.19">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">applicant trading in breach of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.20">cited from="[1994] FCA 1074">whether applicant not a fit and proper person to hold a licence.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">citizenship immigration and emigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">entry permits and change of status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">determination as to refugee status</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">refugee sur place</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">requirement of bona fides.  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">rules of natural justice and breach thereof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">right of party affected to be heard</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">nature of hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">adverse conclusions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 389">circumstances in which party affected to be apprised so that he may respond.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">immigration and aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">deportation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">power of minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">principles of natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">standing as australian citizen of infant daughter of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">intended deportation order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">whether notice required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">migration act 1958 (cth), ss. 6 , 6a, 7 , 18 .  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">order for deportation of aliens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">review of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[1985] HCA 81">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), ss. 5 , 13 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">subclass 572</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">student visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">whether certificate of enrolment in a course of study required current enrolment at time of decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">literal or purposive approach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">section 359a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">whether information provided by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1149">whether "lack of information" covered by s.359a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">section 424a(1)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">country information excluded by s.424a(3)(a)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">tribunal not required to disclose its thought processes or deliberations for comment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">"obvious and natural" appraisal of matters considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">s.422b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">no duty to enquire</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">citing from="[2009] FMCA 1179">bias not established.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2009] FMCA 395">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2009] FMCA 395">review of decision of rrt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2009] FMCA 395">where applicant alleged jurisdictional error in the tribunal's failure to discuss with him independent country information</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2009] FMCA 395">where applicant alleged tribunal had not considered corroborating documents.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FMCA 553">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FMCA 553">review of a refugee review tribunal decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FMCA 553">refusal of a protection (class xa) visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FMCA 553">no reviewable error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">citing from="[2008] FMCA 553">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2040">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2040">new factual material not admitted by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2040">whether illogical or irrelevant finding means jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2040">tribunal's assessment of documents not "information" within s.359a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2040">tribunal not required to give a running commentary upon what it thinks about the evidence given, unless they are not obvious and natural appraisals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2007] FMCA 2040">determination of credibility is an obvious and natural appraisal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1941">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1941">whether a s.424a letter must be sent before the hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1941">whether there are temporal requirements in s.424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1941">whether such words should be introduced for the purposes of construction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1930">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1930">whether the power to reconstitute a tribunal can be exercised under s.421 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1930">whether referring to that section in an instrument invalidates the constitution of the tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2007] FMCA 1930">whether the tribunal is required to give an applicant the opportunity to respond to doubts the tribunal holds about evidence provided to it after the hearing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">appeal from a decision of a federal magistrate reviewing a decision of the refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">nepalese citizen claiming persecution at the hands of maoists</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">whether federal magistrate erred in not considering whether the appellant was at risk in relation to incidents of violence which the tribunal found were likely to recur</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">s 424a migration act 1958 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">whether fact that nepalese citizens have rights of abode in india "information" within the meaning in s 424a or "subjective appraisals, thought processes or determinations"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">whether tribunal should have specifically put to the appellant that she could have left nepal for india immediately on obtaining a passport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">citing from="[2007] FCA 1858">whether independent basis for decision held: appeal dismissed. tribunal found peace accord holding and that the chance of harm from maoists extremely remote. tribunal properly assessed whether well-founded fear of persecution existed and no error arises. that the appellant could have left nepal for india was information for the purposes of s 424a which falls within the exception in s 424a(3)(a) as it pertains to all nepalese citizens in possession of a passport and was not required to be specially put to the appellant.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1149" id="cs0">The Court refers to the decision in SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1091 per Justice Cowdroy at [16]-[17] as follows: "In SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 ; (2006) 231 ALR 592 which applied the decision of the Full Federal Court in Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd ; [1994] FCA 1074 ; (1994) 49 FCR 576 the Court held that a Tribunal is not obliged to put to an applicant its own appraisals of the applicant's evidence unless they are not an obvious and natural appraisal of such material. The meaning of natural and obvious in this context has been considered in numerous decisions: see Somaghi v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 389 ; (1991) 31 FCR 100 at 108. In Re Ruddock (in his capacity as Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Affairs); Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 ; (2003) 201 ALR 437 at [86] Kirby J said: 'The extent of the duty to indicate a relevant piece of apparently adverse evidence for comment obviously depends upon the importance that may be attached to that evidence and whether the importance was so obvious that it did not need to be underlined.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 1179" id="cs1">The Court refers also to the decision in SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1091 per Justice Cowdroy at [16]-[17] as follows: "In SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 231 ALR 592 which applied the decision of the Full Federal Court in Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576 the Court held that a Tribunal is not obliged to put to an applicant its own appraisals of the applicant's evidence unless they are not an obvious and natural appraisal of such material. The meaning of natural and obvious in this context has been considered in numerous decisions: see Somaghi v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 389 ; [1991] FCA 389 ; (1991) 31 FCR 100 at 108. In Re Ruddock (in his capacity as Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Affairs); Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 ; (2003) 201 ALR 437 at [86] Kirby J said: 'The extent of the duty to indicate a relevant piece of apparently adverse evidence for comment obviously depends upon the importance that may be attached to that evidence and whether the importance was so obvious that it did not need to be underlined.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FMCA 395" id="cs2">For the reasons that I have already given, I reject that as a ground. The applicant appears to me to have confused the Tribunal's thought processes and subjective appraisals with some form of contrary evidence. In SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2007] FCA 1091 at [16 - 19] Cowdroy J considered, with the assistance of the authorities including SZBEL v Minister for Immigration  Anor [2006] HCA 63 the obligations of the Tribunal in this regard: The extent of the duty to indicate a relevant piece of apparently adverse evidence for comment obviously depends upon the importance that may be attached to that evidence and whether the importance was so obvious that it did not need to be underlined. In a body proceeding by inquisitorial methods, procedural fairness may require bringing the attention of the applicant to critical facts that appear to contradict, or cast doubt on, his or her claim. Where an observation about an applicant's case is one that is obvious and natural to the circumstances that evoked it, it is usually unnecessary for it to be specifically called to notice.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FMCA 553" id="cs3">Mr Sivaloganathan submits that the fact that the Tribunal did not give weight to the five documents because of the applicant's lack of credibility does not constitute jurisdictional error: SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1091 at [26] ; NZXFN v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 362. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 2040" id="cs4">The Court refers also to the decision in SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1091 per Justice Cowdroy at [16]-[17] as follows: In SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 231 ALR 592 which applied the decision of the Full Federal Court in Commissioner for Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd [1994] FCA 1074 ; (1994) 49 FCR 576 the Court held that a Tribunal is not obliged to put to an applicant its own appraisals of the applicant's evidence unless they are not an obvious and natural appraisal of such material. The meaning of natural and obvious in this context has been considered in numerous decisions: see Somaghi v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1991] FCA 389 ; (1991) 31 FCR 100 at 108. In Re Ruddock (in his capacity as Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Affairs); Ex parte Applicant S154/2002 [2003] HCA 60 ; (2003) 201 ALR 437 at [86] Kirby J said: The extent of the duty to indicate a relevant piece of apparently adverse evidence for comment obviously depends upon the importance that may be attached to that evidence and whether the importance was so obvious that it did not need to be underlined.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1941" id="cs5">The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence that she lived in Manila (CB 16) was inconsistent with her evidence at the hearing that she fled to Manila to avoid threats (Transcript of Tribunal hearing, p.16), and refers to the applicant's written response that she was based in Manila from 1995 (CB 16). Therefore it was only after consideration of the applicant's evidence at the hearing that the material at CB 16 and 41 constituted what could be "a rejection, denial, or undermining" of the applicant's claims. Further, the appraisals of the Tribunal from the evidence are not "information" for the purposes of s.424A(1) ( SZBYR at [18]) if they are natural and obvious appraisals ( SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1091 at [16] ). Therefore the material was not required to be put in a s.424A letter. The fact that the Tribunal set out the material in a s.424A letter after it had made its appraisals did not transform that detail into "information" for the purposes of s.424A.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FMCA 1930" id="cs6">Ground three alleges a denial of procedural fairness, alleging that the Tribunal failed to give the applicant a real opportunity to give evidence and present arguments in relation to the letter from his wife. The Tribunal's appraisal of the letter was not required to be put to the applicant pursuant to s.424A ( SZBYR v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 26 at [18]) as its findings on it were "obvious and natural" : SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1091 at [16] . The letter from the applicant's wife was submitted to the Tribunal following its final hearing of the matter (CB 139.2) and came with a covering submission (CB 137.10). The Tribunal was not required to provide the applicant with a draft of its proposed findings for the applicant to consider: SZJJU v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 726 per Downes J at [7]. As stated by Gleeson CJ in SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63 at [48] :
 Lord Diplock said in F Hoffmann-La Roche  Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry : ... the rules of natural justice do not require the decision maker to disclose what he is minded to decide so that the parties may have a further opportunity of criticising his mental processes before he reaches a final decision. If this were a rule of natural justice only the most talkative of judges would satisfy it and trial by jury would have to be abolished. Procedural fairness does not require the tribunal to give an applicant a running commentary upon what it thinks about the evidence that is given. On the contrary, to adopt such a course would be likely to run a serious risk of conveying an impression of prejudgment. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1858" id="cs7">35 Accordingly, examples of information excluded by section 424A (3)(a) are:

• country information: NAMW [2004] FCAFC 264 ; 140 FCR 572 , SZBJQ v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1346 and SZGQZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 1091

• information from a university website as to the content of a marketing degree course SZFLL v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 355

• information from Canadian source material, telephone interviews, DFAT and UK Home Office material that it would be difficult to leave the relevant country if one was wanted by the authorities: WAJW [2004] FCAFC 330. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear</title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 425A Notice of invitation to appear</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 101">category: no</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 101" id="cs0"/>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l1">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 33 Exercise of powers and duties</title>
<title id="l2">SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l3">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l4">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 63 Requirement to attend Department etc.</title>
<title id="l5">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 80 Cancellation or suspension determination</title>
<title id="l6">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 81 Cancellation or suspension for non-compliance with certain notices</title>
<title id="l7">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 85 Resumption of payment after cancellation or suspension</title>
<title id="l8">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 118 Date of effect of adverse determinations--general rules</title>
<title id="l9">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 126 Review of decisions by Secretary</title>
<title id="l10">SOCIAL SECURITY (ADMINISTRATION) ACT 1999 - SECT 192 General power to obtain information</title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 399">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 399">whether failure to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 399">whether procedures required to be observed were not observed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 399">s 136 of the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth) administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 399">whether failure to observe a procedure required by law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 399">unreasonableness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 399">s 131 of the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">environmental law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">project for deepening shipping channels in port phillip bay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">referral under environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">changes in project between referral and approval costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">costs in public interest litigation  statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 8">subordinate legislation as aid to construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">oshlack v richmond river council  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">statutory power under environmental planning and assessment legislation to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">"public interest"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">arguable case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">significant issues of interpretation of that legislation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1998] HCA 11">whether discretion with respect to costs miscarried.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">discretion to award costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">whether appropriate to depart from general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 466">public interest litigation</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 466" id="cs0">In any event LFF's capacity to meet a costs order is not a relevant consideration in determining whether an order should be made: see Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security (No 2) [2000] FCA 1450 at [4] (French and Beaumont JJ); Blue Wedges Inc v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts (No 2) [2008] FCA 1106 at [14] (North J). </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l1">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 131 Inviting comments from other Ministers before decision</title>
<title id="l2">ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ACT 1999 - SECT 136 General considerations</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>