Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 31">first , in the present case, the claimants must prove what indigenous laws and customs were being acknowledged and observed in the goldfields at the date of sovereignty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 31">1829. but the first explorer did not reach any part of the wongatha claim area until 1869, and, in substance, european settlement did not occur there until the gold rush in the 1890s. in other words, the first substantial written records we have of aboriginal people anywhere in the wongatha claim area relate to the last decade of the nineteenth century, yet the claimants bear the onus of proving what the position was there in 1829. by contrast, in a case relating to an area where settlement of a colony first occurred, there will be written records relating to aboriginal laws and customs as they existed at sovereignty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">judicial review of decision of native title registrar to register indigenous land use agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">area agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">objection to registration by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">whether requirements for registration in s 24cg(3)(b) met</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">authorisation process where competing claims to hold native title in relation to land or waters in the area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">meaning of ' all persons who hold or may hold native title in relation to land or waters in the area covered by the agreement ' in s 24cg(3)(b)(i)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">whether applicant, as a person who may hold native title in the area, required to authorise the agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 939">registrar's decision to register agreement set aside</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">decision by reserve bank of australia to "designate" eftpos system pursuant to s 11 of the payment systems (regulation) act 1998 (cth) (" psr act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether excluding merchants as "participants" in eftpos system was an error of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether requisite opinions regarding efficiency and competition were formed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether irrelevant considerations were taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether failure to take into account relevant considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether ground of wednesbury unreasonableness extends to reasoning process of decision-maker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether the decision and reasoning underlying decision were unreasonable in the wednesbury sense</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether no evidence for factual findings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">whether reserve bank of australia biased</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">conduct of judicial review litigation statutory interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">construction of ss 7 , 8 and 11 of the payment systems (regulation) act 1998 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">construction of s 10b of the reserve bank act 1959 (cth) evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">expert economic evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">admissibility and use of</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">meaning of "competition" and "efficiency"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.16">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">relevance to judicial review  banking</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.17">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">payment systems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.18">cited from="[2005] FCA 1707">eftpos system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 212">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 212">application for leave to appeal, or alternatively appeal from primary judge's decision under s 66b of native title act 1993 (cth) removing applicant in claimant application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 212">whether removal authorised pursuant to s 251b</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 212">whether decision made by native title claim group in accordance with a "process of decision-making agreed to and adopted"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">griffith university v tang  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">exclusion of respondent from phd candidature programme conducted by appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">where appellant is a body created by statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">power of appellant to function as a university and to confer higher education awards derived from statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision to which the judicial review act 1991 (q) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">whether exclusion was a decision made under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2005] HCA 7">relevance of nature of relationship subsisting between parties.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">requirements for proper commencement of suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">necessity to establish that applicant is authorised by all the persons in the native title claim group to make the subject applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">applications failed to establish either individual authorisation or authorisation in accordance with customary law or traditional practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">application by another group member to be a replacement applicant failed because of inability to prove his application was authorised by the claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">principal proceedings not well commenced and foredoomed to failure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1999] FCA 1637">proceeding dismissed as abuse of process.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">whether there was evidence before the decision-maker to support decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">`no evidence'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) ss 5(1)(h) , 5 (3)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">non-existence of a fact relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">exercise of discretion to refuse determination.  customs law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">tariff concessions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">importation of gearcases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">determinsation under customs act 1901 (cth) s.273 customs tariff act 1982 (cth) item 19 part 1 sch. 4</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.10">cited from="[1992] FCA 44">decision that australian made substitutes were `reasonably available'.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">commissioner to inquire into land claims and report to minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report to contain recommendation if certain facts found</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">requirement to comment on detriment to others of acting on recommendation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">report made in ignorance of certain material facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions by persons who would be detrimentally affected by recommended action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reference to material facts not known to commissioner</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">submissions not drawn to minister's attention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">whether failure to take relevant consideration into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">administrative decision (judicial review) act 1977 (cth), s. 5(2)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">aboriginal land rights (northern territory) act 1976,ss. 11(1), 50(3).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretionary judgments</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">functions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">allegation of improper exercise of power by minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.16">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">discretion to refuse relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.17">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">finding of trial judge that exercise not improper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.18">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">reversed on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.19">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">exercise of discretion by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.20">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">further appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.21">cited from="[1986] HCA 40">grounds on which further appellate court will interfere with intermediate court's exercise of discretion.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">literal meaning unambiguous</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">draftsman's mistake</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">parliament's intention clear from context and legislative history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80b (5), 80c (3).  income tax (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">deductions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">losses of previous years</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">holding company and subsidiary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">arrangement by continuing shareholder for purpose of enabling company to take previous year's losses into account for deduction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1981] HCA 26">income tax assessment act 1936 (cth), ss. 80, 80b, 80c (3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">licence for commercial television</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">prescribed interest held by company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">acquisition of shares by another company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">inquiry by australian broadcasting tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to investigate matters relevant to inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">contraventions of act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">acquisition of beneficial entitlement to prescribed interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 25, 91, 91a, 92 (1) (a), (2), (3) (a), 92f.  administrative bodies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.9">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.10">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">supervisory authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.11">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.12">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.13">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to investigate matters relevant to inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.14">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">duty to summon evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.15">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">cross-examination of witnesses</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.16">cited from="[1980] HCA 13">broadcasting and television act 1942 (cth), ss. 16 (1) (c), 25, 92f (4), (4a), 106a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">freedom of interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">prohibition of sale of potatoes by unregistered grower</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether prohibition valid against unregistered grower who sells potatoes interstate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether registration provisions regulatory</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">provision for exaction of contributions from registered growers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether burden on interstate trade</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">whether valid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">effect upon validity of requirements for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12) s. 92</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">potato marketing act, 1948-1973 (s.a.), ss. 12, 18</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1976] HCA 24">acts interpretation act, 1915 (s.a.), as amended, s. 22a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">judicial review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">decision of delegate of national native title registrar not to give notices of an indigenous land use agreement (ilua) under s 24ch of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">whether decision within the terms of s 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">consideration of whether the decision was made under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">held that the plain language and statutory context of s 24ch indicated that the delegate was not expressly or impliedly required or authorised under s 24ch to make any decision about whether the ilua met the prerequisite provisions of the native title act 1993 (cth) before giving notice of it in accordance with s 24ch</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">the decision was therefore not a decision under an enactment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">however decision reviewable under s 39b of the judiciary act 1903 (cth)  native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">indigenous land use agreements (ilua)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">requirements for registration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">delegate concluded that an agreement was not an ilua under the native title act 1993 (cth) because one of the nine persons comprising the registered native title claimant (rntc) had refused to sign it and therefore this person was not a party to the agreement contrary to s 24cd of the native title act 1993 (cth)  native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">construction of s 24cd of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">native title rights and interests are generally held by a large group of indigenous people where the membership is constantly fluctuating</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">such an unincorporated group of persons does not constitute a legal person, it has no existence separate from the members of the group and therefore cannot make a binding contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">the purpose of s 24cd is to overcome this difficulty by providing a statutory mechanism by which such a group of persons can enter into an ilua under the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.15">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">this requires a legal person or persons to act as their representative thereby allowing them to enter into an ilua</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.16">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">consideration of whether an rntc is a legal person with a legal personality distinct from its members</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.17">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">held an rntc is not a legal person as the definition of rntc in s 253 of the native title act 1993 (cth) relies upon the individuals who comprise it and the native title act 1993 (cth) specifies other bodies that serve similar roles to be corporate bodies  native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.18">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">consideration of whether s 24cd specifies that the rntc as a collective entity, or the individual persons who comprise the rntc, must be parties to an ilua</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.19">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">s 24cd requires that "all persons" in the native title group be parties to the ilua and that includes all rntcs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.20">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">held that "all" in s 24cd(2)(a) refers to any rntcs for the area of land, not all of the individuals who comprise the rntc</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.21">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">held that "person" in s 24cd(1) refers to those persons or entities described in s 24cd (2) and (3) whether they are legal persons or not</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.22">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">held that "rntc" in s 253 of the native title act 1993 (cth) is to be construed to mean one or more (but not necessarily all) of the persons who are named in the entry on the register of native title claims as the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.23">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">held that the specified parties in s 24cd(1) and (2) is not the rntc as a collective entity, because it is not a legal person, nor is it all the individuals who comprise the rntc, rather it is one or more of the persons named in the relevant entry in the register acting as representative parties  native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.24">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">further held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.25">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">no requirement for collective or unanimous action by the members of an rntc acting as representative parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.26">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">s 24cd does not provide an opportunity for an individual member of a rntc to frustrate or veto a native title contracting group entering into an ilua by refusing to become a representative party to that ilua</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.27">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">no requirement for a representative party under s 24cd to assent to, or to sign, the ilua</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.28">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">no requirement in s 24cd of the native title act 1993 (cth) that the representative parties to an ilua under s 24cd have to consent to becoming parties to the ilua</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.29">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">the ilua provisions of the native title act 1993 (cth) contain a specific process which provides evidence independently of an ilua that the native title contracting group has assented to</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.30">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">it is therefore open to the native title contracting group to rely on this process rather than indicating its assent by signature</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.31">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">the authorisation given to the applicant by the native title claim group under s 251b does not provide any authorisation to either the applicant or the rntc to perform any role under the ilua provisions of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.32">citing from="[2010] FCA 1019">any alteration, by s 66b of the native title act 1993 (cth), of the composition of the authorised application under s251b , will not effect the authorisation of the making of an ilua under s 251a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">application under administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1997 (cth) for review of decision by a delegate of the native title registrar to register an indigenous land use agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">application to review decision unsuccessful</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">whether circumstances of the case warrant departure from ordinary rule as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">where reasonableness of review application and public importance of issues raised warrant departure from ordinary rule as to costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">relevance of s 85a of the native title act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1479">no order as to costs</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1019" id="cs0"/>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1479" id="cs1">1 On 1 October 2008, the Court dismissed an application by the Applicants under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (AD(JR) Act) for an order of review in respect of a decision by the First Respondent, a Delegate of the Native Title Registrar (the Delegate), made on 14 April 2008 to register an Indigenous Land Use Agreement (ILUA) known as the Traveston Crossing Dam Indigenous Land Use Agreement on the register of Indigenous Land Use Agreements (the Register) pursuant to s 24CJ of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) (Native Title Act): Fesl v Delegate of the Native Title Registrar [2008] FCA 1469. The Delegate did not take an active part in the proceedings. Instead, and properly in the circumstances, she adopted the stance of abiding the order of the court and not wishing to be heard on any issue save as to costs. Upon the dismissal of the judicial review proceedings, the Delegate, through her solicitors, informed the Court that she sought no order as to costs against the Applicants. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977 - SECT 5 Applications for review of decisions</title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 13 Headings, schedules, marginal notes, footnotes and endnotes</title>
<title id="l4">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l5">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l7">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 3 Objects</title>
<title id="l8">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 4 Overview of Act</title>
<title id="l9">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 7 Racial Discrimination Act</title>
<title id="l10">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 11 Extinguishment of native title</title>
<title id="l11">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CA Indigenous land use agreements (area agreements)</title>
<title id="l12">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CB Coverage of area agreements</title>
<title id="l13">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CC Requirement that no bodies corporate for whole of area</title>
<title id="l14">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CD Parties to area agreements</title>
<title id="l15">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CE Consideration and conditions</title>
<title id="l16">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CF Assistance to make area agreements</title>
<title id="l17">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CG Application for registration of area agreements</title>
<title id="l18">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CH Notice of area agreements etc.</title>
<title id="l19">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CI Objections against registration</title>
<title id="l20">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CJ Decision about registration</title>
<title id="l21">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CK Registration of area agreements certified by representative bodies</title>
<title id="l22">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24CL Registration of area agreements not certified by representative Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander bodies</title>
<title id="l23">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24EB Effect of registration on proposed acts covered by indigenous land use agreements</title>
<title id="l24">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 24OA Future acts invalid unless otherwise provided</title>
<title id="l25">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 25 Overview of Subdivision</title>
<title id="l26">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 26 When Subdivision applies</title>
<title id="l27">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 33 Negotiations to include certain things</title>
<title id="l28">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 35 Application for arbitral body determination</title>
<title id="l29">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l30">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 86 Evidence and findings in other proceedings</title>
<title id="l31">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 223 Native title</title>
<title id="l32">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 224 Native title holder</title>
<title id="l33">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 226 Act</title>
<title id="l34">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 227 Act affecting native title</title>
<title id="l35">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 233 Future act</title>
<title id="l36">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 251A Authorising the making of indigenous land use agreements</title>
<title id="l37">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 251B Authorising the making of applications</title>
<title id="l38">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 253 Other definitions</title>
<title id="l39">NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT ACT 1998 </title>
<title id="l40">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l41">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l42">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 - SECT 7 7 Definitions</title>
<title id="l43">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 - SECT 23 23 Cultural heritage duty of care</title>
<title id="l44">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 - SECT 24 24 Unlawful harm to Aboriginal cultural heritage</title>
<title id="l45">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 - SECT 25 25 Prohibited excavation, relocation and taking away</title>
<title id="l46">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 - SECT 26 26 Unlawful possession of Aboriginal cultural heritage</title>
<title id="l47">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 - SECT 35 35 Aboriginal party for an area</title>
<title id="l48">ABORIGINAL CULTURAL HERITAGE ACT 2003 - SECT 86 86 Application of div 2</title>
<title id="l49">WATER ACT 2000 </title>
<title id="l50">WATER REGULATION 2002 </title>
<title id="l51">WATER REGULATION 2002 - SECT 82 82 Purpose of pt 8</title>
<title id="l52">WATER REGULATION 2002 - SECT 87 87 Measures to be carried out</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">bodruddaza v minister for immigration and multicultural affairs  constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">availability of constitutional relief in the high court's original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">a delegate of the respondent cancelled the plaintiff's visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) purported to place a time limit on applications to the high court exercising its original jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">the plaintiff applied for relief outside this time limit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a applies to the plaintiff's application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">s 51(xxxix) of the constitution conferred on parliament power to regulate procedures for seeking relief under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">to what extent this power is limited by the constitutional purposes of s 75(v)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">significance of s 75(v) in the federal scheme</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) is valid.  certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">interrelationship with s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether s 486a of the migration act 1958 (cth) validly regulated the authority of the high court to grant certiorari to the plaintiff.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">cancellation of visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">the plaintiff's visa was cancelled because of a failure to meet language skills qualifications in the migration regulations 1994 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether the decision to cancel the plaintiff's visa amounted to jurisdictional error.  statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">presumption that words in the singular include the plural</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">item 6a31 of the migration regulations 1994 (cth) fixed on what transpired "in a test"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 14">whether presumption vitiated by the text of item 6a31 of the migration regulations .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal from federal magistrates court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal identifies no error of federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">notice of appeal only raises errors committed by refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1263">appeal dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1263" id="cs0">10 Notwithstanding the deficiency in the content of the Notice of Appeal , it nevertheless remains clear that the Appellant sought to invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court and not its original jurisdiction. Whatever other deficiencies there may be in his Notice of Appeal , that Notice does state (without alteration) that " the appellant appeals from the whole of the judgment of the Federal Magistrate Court given on 18.6.2008 at Sydney ". In some circumstances, it may be accepted, it is not appropriate for this Court to deal with an application before it solely upon the basis of " procedural errors committed by an unrepresented applicant ": eg, Thang Gia Uy Vo v Minister for Immigration  Citizenship [2007] FCA 1599 at [12] , [2007] FCA 1599 ; 101 ALD 57 at 59. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ACT 1975 - SECT 44 Appeals to Federal Court of Australia from decisions of the Tribunal</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l3">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 75 Original jurisdiction of High Court</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l6">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l7">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 5E Meaning of purported privative clause decision</title>
<title id="l8">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 474 Decisions under Act are final</title>
<title id="l9">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 476A Limited jurisdiction of the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l10">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 477A Time limits on applications to the Federal Court</title>
<title id="l11">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 483 Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975</title>
<title id="l12">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 500 Review of decision</title>
<title id="l13">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 501 Refusal or cancellation of visa on character grounds</title>
<title id="l14">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1322">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1322">persecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1322">review of refugee review tribunal decision. visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1322">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1322">refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1322">material ignored by the tribunal was not relevant to the issues before it and did not affect the exercise of its power.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 25 Exercise of appellate jurisdiction</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">notice to produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">foreigner not submitting to jurisdiction and seeking exercise of discretion to stay proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">documents referred to in foreign defendant's affidavits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">foreign defendant is a party -part 21 rule 21.10 and rule 21.11 of the uniform civil procedure rules 2005</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">discretion to otherwise order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">relevance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">fishing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">citing from="[2011] NSWSC 185">production required</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] NSWSC 185" id="cs0">The result was that the production of the documents there sought, was stayed until further order. A similar order resulted in Sunland Waterfront (BVI) Ltd v Prudentia Investments Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 1197 , where jurisdiction also was in issue, as well as an application for stay of the proceedings. It was accepted by Logan J that a notice to produce could be issued in relation to interlocutory proceedings, but it was observed at [10]:

"There is, it must be said, something of an incongruity in respect of a party who, on the one hand, challenges the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the substantive proceeding and, on the other hand, seeks to invoke its compulsory process to support an application that that party is making. It may well be that, again prima facie, that course is impermissible: see Armacel Pty Ltd v Smurfit Stone Container Corporation [2007] FCA 1928 ; (2007) 164 FCR 123 at [10] . "

  The Federal Court has taken a different approach in Armacel Pty Ltd v Smurfit Stone Container Corporation [2007] FCA 1928 ; (2007) 164 FCR 123 , where the Court's jurisdiction was also in contest. There, although Jacobsen J referred to the approach taken by Giles CJ Comm D in News Corporation Ltd v Lenfest Communications Inc , observing that 'the principle stated by his Honour is one that I ought to follow (at [9]), he concluded that:

"10 The effect of so doing is that I do not consider that at this stage of the proceedings in which the jurisdiction is under challenge, the applicant can invoke the compulsory processes of the Court. The rules of the Federal Court provide that a notice to produce has the force and effect of a subpoena. Accordingly, the issue of a notice to produce must be considered as an attempt to invoke the Court's compulsory processes in the way discussed by Giles J in the News. 11 Mr Wood, who appears for the applicant, submitted that the decision of Giles J is distinguishable. He drew attention to what appears at 259 to 260 where his Honour observed that he did not think that Pt 36 rule 16 of the Supreme Court Rules should be read down and that it empowers the service of a notice to produce on a foreign party. However, I do not consider those observations of Giles J bear upon the issue before me this morning. "

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1197" id="cs1">There is, it must be said, something of an incongruity in respect of a party who, on the one hand, challenges the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the substantive proceeding and, on the other hand, seeks to invoke its compulsory process to support an application that that party is making. It may well be that, again prima facie, that course is impermissible: see Armacel Pty Ltd v Smurfit Stone Container Corporation [2007] FCA 1928 ; (2007) 164 FCR 123 at [10] . </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 </title>
<title id="l1">ADMIRALTY ACT 1988 - SECT 19 Right to proceed in rem against surrogate ship</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">SUPREME COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">farah constructions pty ltd v say-dee pty ltd  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">fiduciary duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">joint venture to redevelop property between first appellant and respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">second appellant learnt that redevelopment would gain council approval only if the property was amalgamated with adjoining properties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">adjoining properties purchased by the second appellant, his wife and children and another company controlled by the second appellant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether first appellant had an obligation to disclose to the respondent opportunities to purchase adjoining properties and information concerning the council's attitude to redevelopment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether first appellant fulfilled any such obligation of disclosure.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">recipient liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether property acquired through misuse of information by a fiduciary should be treated as trust property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether second appellant's wife and children were liable under the first limb of barnes v addy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether wife and children had notice of any breach of duty by the second appellant -whether second appellant's knowledge could be imputed to wife and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether second appellant was the agent of wife and children and, if so, whether information acquired outside scope of agency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">duty of principal to investigate conduct by agent.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">assistance-based liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether second appellant's wife and children were liable under the second limb of barnes v addy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether second appellant's wife and children were liable as knowing participants in a dishonest and fraudulent design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">knowledge requirement in the second limb of barnes v addy .  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">tracing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether property was the traceable proceeds of second appellant's breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether wife and children of second appellant were volunteers.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether wife and children of second appellant were liable to account for profits made through their acquisition of the properties.  unjust enrichment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">restitutionary liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether wife and children held their properties on constructive trust for the joint venture by reason of liability to make restitution based on unjust enrichment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether the notice test in the first limb of barnes v addy should be abandoned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">application of concept of unjust enrichment to recipient liability for breach of trust or fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether unjust enrichment at the expense of the respondent.  real property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.28">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">indefeasibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.29">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">second appellant's wife and children were registered proprietors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.30">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether their title was indefeasible pursuant to s 42 of the real property act 1900 (nsw)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.31">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether registered title subject to an in personam claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.32">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether registered title subject to a constructive trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.33">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether title obtained by fraud within the meaning of s 42(1).  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.34">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.35">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">appellate intervention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.36">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether court of appeal erred in reversing findings of fact made at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.37">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">weight to be given to trial judge's assessment of witness credibility by an intermediate court of appeal.  courts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.38">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.39">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether court of appeal erred in deciding the appeal on a ground not argued in that court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.40">cited from="[2007] HCA 22">whether court of appeal erred in deciding the appeal on a matter not pleaded by the respondent at trial.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 374">landlord and tenant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 374">termination on tenant being placed in liquidation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2001] NSWSC 374">whether satellite dish and technical equipment fixtures, tenant's fixtures or chattels</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">austral pacific group limited v airservices australia  negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">action by employee against appliance manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">manufacturer issued third party proceedings against commonwealth authority employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">federal jurisdiction attracted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">application by commonwealth authority to strike out manufacturer's third party notice against it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether commonwealth authority was liable as a joint tortfeasor "in respect of the same damage" as manufacturer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether employee's non-compliance with the requirement of election in s 45 of the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) ever subjected the commonwealth authority to liability to the employee.  federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether s 64 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) operated</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether s 79 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) "picked up" ss 6 and 7 of the law reform act 1995 (q)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2000] HCA 39">whether ss 44 or 45 of the safety, rehabilitation and compensation act 1988 (cth) "otherwise provided" within the meaning of s 79 of the judiciary act 1903 (cth).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 822" id="cs0">On 10 July 2009 I made declarations and an order in this proceeding: see Vopak Terminal Darwin Pty Limited v Natural Fuels Darwin Pty Limited (Subject to Deed of Company Arrangement) [2009] FCA 742 (Earlier Reasons). These reasons are supplementary to the Earlier Reasons. I will use the abbreviations that I used in them. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 436A Company may appoint administrator if board thinks it is or will become insolvent</title>
<title id="l2">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 447A General power to make orders</title>
<title id="l3">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 447B Orders to protect creditors during administration</title>
<title id="l4">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 447E Supervision of administrator of company or deed</title>
<title id="l5">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 1337B Jurisdiction of Federal Court and State and Territory Supreme Courts</title>
<title id="l6">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 </title>
<title id="l7">JUDICIARY ACT 1903 - SECT 39B Original jurisdiction of Federal Court of Australia</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">STAMP DUTIES ACT 1920 </title>
<title id="l10">LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1958 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">policy for the planning of national and arterial roads systems</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">national capital plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">national capital planning authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">commonwealth action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action by authority prohibited under environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action includes making of amendments to plan</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action will have an actual or likely impact on environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">no finding of facts by primary judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">whether action is a governmental authorisation and excluded from definition of action under the act practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">federal court rules o 29 r 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">formulation of separate or preliminary questions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2005] FCAFC 203">difficulties associated with procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">pilmer v the duke group limited (in liquidation)  contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">breach</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">calculation of loss</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">contract of retainer for valuation of subject of takeover bid</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">plaintiff company effected takeover in reliance on valuation made in breach of duty of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">had valuation been accurate plaintiff would not have proceeded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">consideration included cash and issue and allotment of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether plaintiff suffered loss by issue of shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether damages include sum representing market value of shares issued under agreement.  companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company finance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">share capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">maintenance of capital</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company limited by shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">company issuing new shares</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">issue and allotment otherwise than for cash</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether company suffers loss by reason of issuing new shares.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">fiduciary duties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">duty of loyalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">conflict of duties and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">conflict of duty and duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.21">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">accountant retained by company to give independent expert valuation report to be placed before shareholders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.22">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">whether accountant owed fiduciary duties to company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.23">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">principles of causation in equity.  equity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.24">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">equitable remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.25">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">equitable compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.26">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.27">cited from="[2001] HCA 31">reduction for contributing fault.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1221">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1221">review of registrar's decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1221">de novo review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 1221">potential to fragment the taxation process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 1221">referral of outstanding issues to mediation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 1085">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 1085">application to vacate hearing date</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 1085">ability of court to accommodate the wishes of the parties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">statutory demand upon director for production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">request by company for copy of documents provided to regulator</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">non</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">duty of director to provide copy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">proscriptive or prescriptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">request for production</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">indemnity for costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">liability owed by director to company practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">discontinuance with leave of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">citing from="[2008] FCA 1986">no general rule that discontinuing party should pay costs occasioned by discontinuance</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1221" id="cs0">The litigation between the present parties has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. A number of judgments have already been given: Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus [2007] FCA 1878 ; Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus [2007] FCA 2117 ; Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus (No 3) [2008] FCA 1986 , 69 ACSR 264 ; Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus (No 4) [2009] FCA 1085. The facts giving rise to the litigation need not be now repeated. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 1085" id="cs1">It is an application to vacate by consent the hearing of an outstanding aspect of a proceeding which has previously been heard in part ( Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus [2007] FCA 1878 ; Motor Trades Association Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus [2007] FCA 2117 and Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus (No 3) [2008] FCA 1986 , 69 ACSR 264) and to fix an alternative date to hopefully suit the convenience of all counsel. The existing date fixed for hearing is 30 October 2009. That date was fixed on 14 August 2009. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1986" id="cs2">12 Two previous decisions have been given in the present proceeding. The first was on 7 November 2007 when ( inter alia ) orders previously made for the determination of separate questions were vacated and leave was granted to amend the then state of the pleadings: Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus [2007] FCA 2117. The Authority was also then joined as the Second Respondent. A second decision was given on 26 November 2007 when ( inter alia ) the Trustee was ordered to pay the costs of Mr Rickus on an indemnity basis: Motor Trades Association of Australia Superannuation Fund Pty Ltd v Rickus [2007] FCA 1878. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">australian broadcasting corporation v o'neill  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">appellant restrained from broadcasting documentary film making allegations including that respondent suspected of having committed notorious unsolved crime</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">principles on which interlocutory injunction to restrain publication granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relevance of "flexible" or "rigid" approaches to granting interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of value of free speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of avoiding "trial by media"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether relevant that only nominal damages likely to be awarded</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">significance of status of respondent as convicted life prisoner.  injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether general principles governing grant of interlocutory injunctions to restrain wrongs apply to interlocutory applications to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">relationship between beecham group ltd v bristol laboratories pty ltd [1968] hca 1 ; (1968) 118 clr 618 and american cyanamid co v ethicon ltd [1975] ukhl 1 ; [1975] ac 396</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether respondent had made out an entitlement to an interlocutory injunction within the principles established by beecham</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.16">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether full court and primary judge shown to have erred in granting of interlocutory injunction.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.17">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.18">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">jurisdiction to grant interlocutory injunction to restrain publication of allegedly defamatory matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.19">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">nature of equitable jurisdiction to grant injunctions to restrain publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.20">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of common law procedure act 1854 (uk)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.21">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">effect of judicature act 1873 (uk).  appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.22">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">interlocutory injunction in defamation proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.23">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">necessity of demonstrating error in order to justify intervention by high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.24">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether error shown in approach and conclusion of full court and primary judge.  defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.25">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">defences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.26">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">justification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.27">cited from="[2006] HCA 46">whether avoiding "trial by media" relevant to determination of "public benefit" required by defamation act 1957 (tas) s 15.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">polyaire pty ltd v k-aire pty ltd  intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">designs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">infringement of a registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">fraudulent imitation of a registered design</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">where alleged infringing design sufficiently different not to be an obvious imitation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">whether fraudulent imitation requires that differences between alleged infringing design and registered design be attributable to dishonest disguise of the latter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] HCA 32">whether the application of a fraudulent imitation requires that alleged infringer applied design with knowledge of the existence of the registration and of absence of consent to its use, or with reason to suspect those matters.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">action for infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">principles governing grant or refusal.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">DESIGNS ACT 2003 </title>
<title id="l1">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 146 Death of applicant before application determined</title>
<title id="l2">DESIGNS ACT 2003 - SECT 153 Applications made before commencing day</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">application for an order that a prospective respondent make discovery of documents under order 15a rule 6 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">discovery and inspection distinguished</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">means of providing discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">need for evidence from controlling mind of a corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">interlocutory nature of proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">relief discretionary administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">scope of judicial review of administrative action under s 75(v) of the constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1567">standing to bring proceedings to vindicate the public interest</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1348">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1348">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1348">requirements of o 15a r 6 of federal court rules 1979 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1348">purpose of preliminary discovery narrower than discovery after action commenced</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1348">preliminary discovery need only provide evidence sufficient to enable applicant to decide whether to pursue proceedings.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FamCA 542">1. that the mother and father have equal shared parental responsibility for the child of the relationship [a daughter] born [...] october 1995 ("[the child]"), such responsibility to include, but not be limited to, issues about:</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FamCA 542">(a) the education of [the child]</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FamCA 542">current and future; (b) her religion; (c) her health; (d) any proposed change of name; and (e) any change to her living arrangements that may make it significantly more difficult for [the child] to spend time with either parent. 2. that each parent be entitled to attend events involving [the child] including, but not limited to: (a) sporting fixtures; (b) extra curricular activities that allow for parental attendance or participation; (c) school functions and events that allow for parental attendance or participation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FamCA 541">family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FamCA 541">children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FamCA 541">orders made to bring an application up to trial readiness pursuant to division 12a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FamCA 541">wife remarried with two children proposes to relocate to western australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FamCA 541">husband who spends time with his 11 year old son opposes the application.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">assessment of damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">conversion damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">additional damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 228">whether lump sum costs orders should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">intellectual property</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">novelty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">reverse infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no suggested advantage or difference between materials in possible range</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">reverse infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">equal in practical utility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">clear directions in prior art to work within claimed ranges or proportions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no suggestion that specified proportions or ranges other than arbitrary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">claim construction and disclosure in prior art a matter for expert evidence only to the extent of special meaning to skilled reader</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">obviousness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">reliance on evidence of skilled worker with no common general knowledge in australia for inventive step</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">mental logic of the notional team constituting the skilled addressee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">evidence given without knowledge of the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no hindsight analysis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">test in astra</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">not a question of worthwhile to try</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">inventive step is the choice of metal alloys in the combination that was otherwise common general knowledge and acknowledged as known in the specification</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no suggestion that initiation of inventive step in other than the choice of the new alloys for use in the reflective layers by reference to known requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">dependent and omnibus claims</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">incorporates the invalidity of the independent claims to the extent of dependence on that claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">lack of sufficiency of description costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">o 62 r 11(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">gross sum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">evidence of detailed bill of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">no appearance by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">further expense and delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.27">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">success by applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.28">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">award of costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.29">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">amount logical, fair and reasonable practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.30">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">default judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.31">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">revocation of patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.32">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">patentee chooses not to defend patent monopoly</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.33">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">federal court rules o 10 r 7(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.34">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">o 11 r 23(1)(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.35">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">o 33 r 3 (repealed)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.36">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">s 190(3) evidence act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.37">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">discretion in s 190(3) applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.38">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">relevance of o 33 r 3 (repealed) to s 190(3)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.39">cited from="[2004] FCA 1405">translations of prior art japanese patent not a certified translation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">federal court rules order 15a rule 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">whether reasonable cause to believe that applicant has or may have right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">asserted claims for breach of warranty, misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">low threshold requirement for reasonable belief, however belief must amount to more than a mere possibility or speculation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">entitlement to preliminary discovery in order for applicant to ascertain defences available to respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">representations made as to future financial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">onus on respondent to show reasonableness of future representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">preliminary discovery appropriate in relation to future representations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">application for preliminary discovery otherwise denied trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">representations as to future financial circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 1360">burden of proof</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">the daniels corporation international pty ltd v australian competition and consumer commission  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">legal professional privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">statutory notice to produce documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">whether statute abrogated legal professional privilege.  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">notice to produce documents to australian competition and consumer commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">commission investigating whether trade practices act 1974 (cth) contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 49">whether documents to be produced included those for which legal professional privilege claimed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">slip and fall</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether employer failed to provide a safe means of access between car park and offices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether stairs slippery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">whether expert evidence on slipperiness of stairs should have been accepted by trial judge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">discussion in obiter dicta about credibility of party-witness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">where employee injured whilst walking between roof-top car park and office</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">where lack of previous slipping accidents on stairs  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">expert evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">admissibility and use</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">discussion of common law and statutory requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">need for expert witness to reveal factual and intellectual basis of opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">evidence act 1995 (nsw), ss 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 and 80</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.16">cited from="[2001] NSWCA 305">d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">federal court rules , o 15a, r 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">whether reasonable cause to believe the applicant may have a right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1999] FCA 710">whether applicant has insufficient information to enable a decision to be made to commence proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 285">evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 285">hearsay rule and exception for business records</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 285">s69(3) of evidence act 1995 precludes exception where prepared for australian proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 285">application of s69(3) of evidence act 1995 where pre-existing computer stored material retrieved and other adjustments made in responding to subpoenas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 285">effect of s48(1)(d) and (e) of evidence act 1995 in relation to proof of documents retrieved from electronic storage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 285">discretion to permit waiver of rules of evidence under s190(3) of evidence act 1995 .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">justices (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">search warrant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">issue</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">requirements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">reasonable grounds for suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">whether justice must entertain suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">facts to found reasonable suspicion or belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">sworn complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">relevance of statements otherwise than on oath</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">cited from="[1990] HCA 26">the criminal code (q.), s. 679.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">defamation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">discovery preliminary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">newspaper</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">alleged defamatory publication</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">identity of journalist's informants not disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">application for disclosure for purpose of commencing proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">newspaper rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">application for preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 54">rules of the supreme court of new south wales pt 3, r 1(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">appeal from federal court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">final judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">decision of federal court granting leave to appeal from supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">dispute about standing of applicant for leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.7">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">whether decision to grant leave final judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.8">cited from="[1982] HCA 9">federal court of australia act 1976 (cth), s. 33(4).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1176">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1176">application for preliminary discovery seeking identification of journalists' sources</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1176">whether an interlocutory proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1176">where defendants sought to rely on evidence on information and belief from the very sources the identification of whom is sought in the proceeding without identifying those sources</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1176">whether such evidence admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule in s75 of the evidence act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2010] NSWSC 1176">reasons for granting adjournment enabling both parties to address by direct evidence matters previously sought to be proved only by evidence on information and belief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">27 april 2010  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">whether application seeking leave under s 47a(3) of limitation act 1935 (wa) to bring a proceeding or alternatively a declaration as to the inapplicability of s 47a enlivened federal court's jurisdiction under judiciary act 1903 (cth) s 39b(1a)(c) though proceeding was not formally instituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where application and accompanying affidavit showed that applicants wanted to bring the proceeding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where proposed statement of claim exhibited to affidavit disclosed a federal matter arising under federal statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where applicants required to seek leave before bringing proposed proceeding assuming limitation act applied because leave could not be granted retrospectively</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">federal jurisdiction enlivened in the absence of an initiating process where vindication of rights under federal statute depends or may depend on the resolution of a prior preliminary application for leave under the limitation act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">court had jurisdiction over application as incidental to exercise of judicial power over federal matter  practice  procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">whether applicants' substantive claims disclosed a federal matter arising under federal statute within judiciary act 1903 (cth) s 39b(1a)(c)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">where substantive claims included claims for violation of rights and privileges conferred on applicants under the civil aviation act 1988 (cth) and/or related regulations and orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims "arose under" federal statutory law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims were not made for purpose of fabricating jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.13">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">non-federal claims formed part of same "matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp22.14">citing from="[2010] FCA 367">claims disclosed a federal matter attracting federal jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">application for leave to appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">whether the grant or refusal of leave to appeal is an exercise of appellate jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">order 52 rule 2aa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">distinction between a clear-cut case for the grant or refusal of leave and an evenly balanced case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">significance of no right of appeal from grant or refusal of leave or confusion about whether such a right exists. preliminary discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">refusal to grant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">whether a matter of practice or procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp23.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 47">whether effectively final in nature.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1731">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1731">applications for discovery by prospective respondents corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp24.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1731">requirements for the transfer of shares in proprietary companies under the corporations act</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] NSWSC 1176" id="cs0">

26 I would respectfully agree with that analysis. There is, however, a body of authority to different effect. The authorities relied upon by Mr Blackburn on this question included Hall v Nominal Defendant [1966] HCA 36 ; (1966) 117 CLR 423 ; Ex Parte Britt (1987) 1 Qd R 221 ; Herald  Weekly Times Ltd v Guide Dog Owners  Friends Assoc [1990] VicRp 40 ; [1990] VR 451 ; Brouwer v Titan Corp Ltd (1997) 73 FCR 241 ; London Economics (Aust) Pty Ltd v Frontier Economics Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 932 and Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1560 ; 163 FCR 554. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 367" id="cs1">Hooper v Kirella has been regularly followed and applied in preliminary discovery applications in this Court: see, e.g., Allphones Retail Pty Ltd v Australian Competition  Consumer Commission [2009] FCA 980 ; (2009) 259 ALR 354 ; Wyeth v Secretary, Department of Health and Ageing [2009] FCA 313 ; (2009) 255 ALR 352 ; Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1560 ; (2007) 163 FCR 554 (' Optiver '); Rush v Commissioner of Police [2006] FCA 12 ; (2006) 150 FCR 165 ; and Kennedy v Wallace (2004) 208 ALR 424. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 47" id="cs2">3 Tamberlin J, in his judgment of 21 December 2007, dismissed an application for preliminary discovery pursuant to O 15A r 6 of the Federal Court Rules . In earlier judgments concerning the application for preliminary discovery Tamberlin J struck out the bulk of a notice to produce served by the respondents ( Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1348 --- 31 August 2007) and rejected objections by the respondents to evidence filed by the applicant in support of its application for preliminary discovery ( Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1560 --- 12 October 2007). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1731" id="cs3">12 An order made in an application under Order 15A rule 6 will be interlocutory, given that it will not preclude a further application (per Beaumont, Lee and Dowsett JJ in Malouf v Malouf [1999] FCA 284 ; (1999) 86 FCR 134 at 143; see also per Tamberlin J in Optiver Australia Pty Ltd v Tibra Trading Pty Ltd [2007] FCA 1560 at [10] - [20]).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l1">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 75 Exception: interlocutory proceedings</title>
<title id="l2">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 190 Waiver of rules of evidence</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">copyright</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">packaging for photoboxes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">labels containing photograph and descriptive text</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">whether "drawing" or "compilation" trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">similar get-up of packaging for identical products sold by trade rivals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">displayed side by side at retail outlets</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">whether misleading and deceptive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1922">whether gross profit on equivalent sales lost an appropriate measure of damage</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">de facto relationship act 1984</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">offer of compromise made by plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">order by master in favour of plaintiff in amount in excess of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">order for costs on indemnity basis in favour of plaintiff</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">appeal by defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">appeal upheld and order of master reduced but not below amount of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">plainitff seeks order for costs of appeal on indemnity basis  costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">departing from general rule</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">offer of compromise made by plaintiff before trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">award at trial exceeds amount of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">order for indemnity costs of trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">appeal by defendant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">appeal upheld and award reduced but not below amount of offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.15">cited from="[1999] NSWCA 21">plaintiff seeks order for costs of appeal on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">representations as to future matters</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">no reversal of onus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">need to adduce evidence to the contrary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">aiding and abetting contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">contract for sale of goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">implied term as to fitness for purpose</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 1480">business efficacy</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1480" id="cs0">None examined the enactment history of s 51A. If it be thought, contrary to my reading of Keane JA's reasons, that his Honour's reference to Kaye [2004] FCA 1363 as "established authority" was a conclusion that s 51A(2) effected a reversal of the legal and persuasive onus of proof, I would be driven to the respectful view that his Honour was plainly wrong for the reasons that I have given. Perhaps not surprisingly, Emmett J also agreed with Allsop J as to the operation of s 51A(2): [2008] FCA 2 at [6] , 165 FCR at 233---4. The third member of the Full Court, Stone J, considered that the issues thrown up by s 51A(2) were best left to be resolved by a Full Court where there had been full argument and where the outcome depended on the view taken of the section: [2008] FCAFC 2 at [76] , 165 FCR at 247---8. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 </title>
<title id="l1">COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 115 Actions for infringement</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 51A Interest up to judgment</title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 </title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL PROCEEDINGS (COSTS) ACT 1981 - SECT 6 Costs certificates for respondents--Federal appeals</title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>