Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FMCA 594">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FMCA 594">application for inquiry into conduct of trustee pursuant to s.179 of bankruptcy act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FMCA 594">threshold determination required before inquiry embarked upon.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">sequestration order made by registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">rehearing of petition by federal magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether valid service of bankruptcy notice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether appellant was solvent procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">where appellant self-represented</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether appellant given sufficient time to present evidence and submissions on review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether motion to adduce further evidence should have been allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">whether cross-examination on affidavits should have been allowed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">magistrate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 79">ostensibly biased against applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">sequestration order made by registrar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">review application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">evidence of solvency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">'other sufficient cause'.  federal magistrates act 1999 , ss.1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FMCA 870">3 . 104 (2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">rule that costs follow the event</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">indemnity costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1035">whether conduct of second respondent warranted order for costs on an indemnity basis.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">meetings of directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">extraordinary general meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">notice of meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">quorum at meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">compliance with constitution and corporations act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">where no notice or inadequate notice of meetings given to some directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">where no quorum at meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">whether meetings validly convened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">effect on resolutions purportedly passed at meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">removal of directors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">procedure under constitution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 912">constructive resignation.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1348">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1348">application for review of trustee's decision to refuse to return passport</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1348">nature of application under s 178</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1348">exercise by the court of the judicial power of the commonwealth.   bankruptcy act 1924 s 148  bankruptcy act 1966 pt vii ; div 4; ss 139zu , 177</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1348">179 , ; sub-ss 139p(1),139q(1), 139zu(3), 149d(1), 272(c); paras 77(a)(ii), 149d(1)(b)-(n)  income tax administration act 1953 s 14v; sub-ss 14s(1), 14v(1), 14v(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">bankruptcy: deed of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">application for inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">conduct of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether trustee carried on business other than for purposes of beneficial disposal or winding-up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether breach of trust</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether negligent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether misfeasance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether wilful default</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether culpable neglect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether courts should have powers of supervision over trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether court has discretion to order inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether delay by applicant  bankruptcy act 1966 ss. 134 , 135, 176 , 176 , 237  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">deed of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">application for inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">conduct of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.15">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">allegations of breach of trust, negligence, misfeasance, wilful default, culpable neglect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.16">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">whether court has discretion to order inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.17">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.18">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">delay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.19">cited from="[1981] FCA 167">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 134 , 135, 176 , 237 (4). on 27th april, 1970, the applicant, gault, entered into a deed of arrangement pursuant to pt x of the bankruptcy act 1966 (the act). the respondent, law, was the trustee appointed under the deed. subsequent to the execution of the deed the applicant, with the approval of the respondent, entered into a contract for the supply and fixing of guard railing for certain bridges in canberra with a construction company. on 26th august, 1970, the respondent dismissed the applicant form the business pursuant to his powers contained in the deed and appointed another person as manager. by april 1971 the guard railing contract had been completed and after a meeting of the committee of inspection the respondent advised that the business be sold off, which, within a month, took place. between may 1971 and march 1972 the applicant and his solicitor, with the approval of the respondent, undertook the task of settling outstanding claims with the construction company. the claims were ultimately settled. the applicant's creditors were by may 1972 paid in full, though the deed was never terminated as the outstanding fees of the respondent remained owing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">application by official receiver to elect to proceed with action in high court commenced by bankrupt prior to her bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">whether time for making of such election can be extended</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">whether official receiver had abandoned the action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">factors to be considered when exercising discretion to extend time  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth.) ss. 33 (1) (c), 60 .  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">high court action commenced by bankrupt before her bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">application to continue action in her own name</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">whether action is for damages for personal injury or wrong done to the bankrupt within the meaning of s. 60 (4) (a) and s. 116 (2) (g)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">discussion as to history and meaning of those sections.  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth.), ss. 60 , 116  bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">bankrupt commenced court proceedings prior to bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">election by official receiver to proceed with court action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">time for making election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.12">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">extension of time for making election</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.13">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">abandonment of action by official receiver</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.14">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">discretion of court in extending time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.15">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.16">cited from="[1981] FCA 5">bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss. 33 (1)(c), 60 . in march 1978 a sequestration order was made against the estate of the bankrupt, who, in 1974, had commenced an action in the high court against the commonwealth of australia and one brigadier flint. on 20th september, 1978, notice of the high court proceedings was served on the official receiver. on 17th october, 1978, evatt j. ordered that the time to comply with the notice be extended to 1st november, 1978. on 31st october, 1978, the official receiver convened a meeting of creditors who resolved to authorize him to continue the action; the creditors however failed to provide him with any indemnity in respect of costs. between november 1978 and july 1979 correspondence between the official receiver and the commonwealth crown solicitor ensued, culminating in a letter from the commonwealth crown solicitor stating that the official receiver was deemed to have abandoned the action as he had not prosecuted the same within the time specified in s. 60(3) of the bankruptcy act 1966 (the act).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1977] FCA 15">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1977] FCA 15">refusal of official receiver to allow bankrupt to travel overseas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1977] FCA 15">appeal against refusal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1977] FCA 15">considerations applicable on appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1977] FCA 15">bankruptcy act 1966 , ss. 77 , 178 , 272 . the applicant, a bankrupt, delivered his passport to the official receiver, as trustee of his estate, after the making of the sequestration order against his estate, as required by s. 77 of the bankruptcy act 1966 . later, the applicant sought permission from the official receiver to travel overseas on business assignments. the official receiver refused permission, and the applicant appealed to the federal court against the refusal, pursuant to s. 178 of the act, which provides as follows: "if the bankrupt, a creditor or any other person is affected by an act, omission or decision of the trustee, he may apply to the court, and the court may make such order in the matter as it thinks just and equitable".  held: (1) section 178 of the act confers the widest possible discretion as to the appropriate order in an application pursuant to the section, and the court is not confined to interfering with the trustee's act, omission or decision only if it is of the view that the trustee has acted absurdly or unreasonably or in bad faith.  re peters; ex parte lloyd (1882), 47 lt 64 ; re a debtor; ex parte the debtor v. dodwell, (1949) ch 236 ; leon v. york-o-matic ltd., (1966) 1 wlr 1450 ; re carson; ex parte carson (1960), 19 abc 108 ; re hall (1957), 20 abc 21 , referred to.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2011] FMCA 288">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2011] FMCA 288">applicants declared bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2011] FMCA 288">county court proceedings for alleged fraud</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2011] FMCA 288">official trustee's alleged refusal to assign that cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2011] FMCA 288">application to review official trustee's alleged omission or failure to review the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2011] FMCA 288">review application made out of time</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2011] FMCA 288">court's role supervisory rather than administrative in nature.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 948">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 948">interim application filed in an application under s.81 of the bankruptcy act 1966 (cth) for the court to issue examination summons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 948">interim application seeks discharge of the summons and pursuant to s.179 inquire into the conduct of the trustee and have him removed from office.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FMCA 703">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FMCA 703">application for orders in relation to administration of bankrupt estate of the son of the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FMCA 703">whether mother of bankrupt who is co-owner of property was affected by an act, omission or decision of the trustee within s.178 of the bankruptcy act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FMCA 703">when applicant became aware of the act, omission or decision in question.  bankruptcy act 1966 (cth), ss.30 , 81 , 116 , 120 , 121 , 133 , 139da , 176 , 178  colgate-palmolive company and another v cussons pty limited (1993) 46 fcr 225 ; [1993] fca 536</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 227">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 227">standing of a creditor to seek relief under s 120 and/or s 121 of the bankruptcy act or declaratory relief in respect of the rights of a trustee to obtain relief under those sections</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 227">control over trustees under ss 177-179 of the act.  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 227">summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 227">resolution of questions of law on a summary dismissal application  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 227">leave to continue proceedings under s 37a of the conveyancing act 1919 (nsw) following the bankruptcy of the transferors of property said to have been transferred with intent to defraud creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2009] FamCA 455">family law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2009] FamCA 455">companies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2009] FamCA 455">receivership and/or liquidation and/or winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2009] FamCA 455">obligations of receivers and managers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">appeal and new trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">general principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">interference with discretion of court below</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">re-exercise of discretioncorporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up voluntarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">supervision of liquidators by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">inquiry under s 536(1)(a) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">faithful performance of dutiescorporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up voluntarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">supervision of liquidators by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.15">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">inquiry under s 536(1)(b) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.16">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">complaint</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.17">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">whether a complaint was made corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.18">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up winding up voluntarily</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.19">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.20">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">supervision of liquidators by the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.21">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">inquiry under s 536(3) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.22">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators to answer an inquiry corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.23">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.24">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">liquidators</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.25">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">duties and liabilities</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.26">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">in voluntary winding up</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.27">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">factors relevant to the discretion to ordering an inquiry under s 536 corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.28">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">size of anticipated return to creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.29">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">position of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.30">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">proportionality between cost and recovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.31">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">failure to apply for directions before commencement of the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.32">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">litigation funding statutes</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.33">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">acts of parliament</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.34">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">interpretation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.35">citing from="[2009] NSWCA 64">s 536(1)(a) , s 536(1)(b) , s 536(3) corporations act 2001 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1977">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1977">inquiry into conduct of trustee</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1977">grounds for removal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1977">breakdown of relationship between trustee and bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1977">admission of estimate of costs for voting purposes at creditors meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2007] FCA 1977">whether a conflict of interest exists when interests of creditors and interests of trustee are similar</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2007] FCA 1977">use of notice of objection to discharge of bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 509">security for costs of appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 509">no point of principle</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FMCA 288" id="cs0">In Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 (15 January 2007) Besanko J held, in relation to section 178 of the Act that: (a) The fundamental purpose of section 178 of the Act is to give the court the power in a supervisory role, to review acts, omissions or decisions of a Official Trustee in bankruptcy made in the course of the administration of a bankrupt's estate on the application of any person with appropriate understanding. (b) Its operation is to be understood in its historical context ( Macchia v Nilant [2001] FCA 7 ; [2001] FCA 7 ; (2001) 110 FCR 101 at 119 per French J), and in the context of the broader relationship between the court and the Official Trustee in bankruptcy as an officer of the court ( Macchia at 116). Indeed, section 178 of the Act is typically employed where an allegation of misconduct or error by a Official Trustee in bankruptcy arises ( Macchia v Nilant [2001] FCA 7 ; (2001) 110 FCR 101 at 120 per French J; Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 (15 January 2007) per Besanko J). 37. For present purposes it is sufficient to note the following points about the scope of the section: (a) Under the section, the court is fulfilling a supervisory role judicially, rather than an administrative role standing in the shoes of the Official Trustee. Counsel for the First Respondent conveniently sets out some of the legal principles arising from section 178 in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the First Respondent's Outline of Facts and Contentions, and I incorporate and adopt those paragraphs into my reasons, as follows: 36. In Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 (15 January 2007) Besanko J held, in relation to section 178 of the Act that: (a) The fundamental purpose of section 178 of the Act is to give the court the power in a supervisory role, to review acts, omissions or decisions of a Official Trustee in bankruptcy made in the course of the administration of a bankrupt's estate on the application of any person with appropriate understanding. (b) Its operation is to be understood in its historical context ( Macchia v Nilant [2001] FCA 7 ; [2001] FCA 7 ; (2001) 110 FCR 101 at 119 per French J), and in the context of the broader relationship between the court and the Official Trustee in bankruptcy as an officer of the court ( Macchia at 116). Indeed, section 178 of the Act is typically employed where an allegation of misconduct or error by a Official Trustee in bankruptcy arises ( Macchia v Nilant [2001] FCA 7 ; (2001) 110 FCR 101 at 120 per French J; Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 (15 January 2007) per Besanko J).</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 948" id="cs1">Mr Dubler in his written submissions in respect to the general principles of the application of s.179 referred the Court to the decision in Boensch v Pascoe [2007] FCA 1977 per Buchannan J at [10]: [10] Examination of this issue sheds light on the quality of the case necessary to order that an inquiry be held under s 179 of the Act. A Full Court said recently that 'a clear case must be made out to warrant an inquiry' (Maxwell-Smith v Donnelly [2006] FCAFC 150 at [53]; see also Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 at [30] . The necessity to establish some adequate foundation for removal of a trustee has been long established. In Miller v Cameron [1936] HCA 13 ; (1936) 54 CLR 572 Dixon J with whom Evatt and McTiernan JJ agreed) said (at 580---581): The jurisdiction to remove a trustee is exercised with a view to the interests of the beneficiaries, to the security of the trust property and to an efficient and satisfactory execution of the trusts and a faithful and sound exercise of the powers conferred upon the trustee.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FMCA 703" id="cs2">The court has very wide powers under s.178 to make such order as it thinks just and equitable. That includes the power to make declarations and orders as to the ownership of property. This should be seen in light of the court's general power under s.30 of the Bankruptcy Act (which was referred to in passing by the applicant), which is a broadly-expressed power to make such orders as necessary to deal with matters. However while s.178 needs to be considered in the context of s.30 , it does not create a cause of action sounding in damages, nor does it extend to claims for damages for losses unrelated to the bankrupt estate, whether arising in tort or otherwise (see Macchia v Nilant (2001) 110 FCR 101 ; [2001] FCA 7 ; Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2003) 126 FCR 281; [2003] FCA 73 and Moore v Macks (2007) 4 ABC(NS) 639; [2007] FCA 10). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 227" id="cs3">Both of these propositions reflect the purpose of the section which is to give the court a supervisory role with respect to a trustee in bankruptcy in the administration of the bankrupt's estate. (f) Ultimately the question is what result would be 'just and equitable' in the circumstances of the case. (per Besanako J in Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 ('Moore v Macks') at [28]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FamCA 455" id="cs4">It was further submitted that Mr Ranteri had failed to identify any grounds for an enquiry into the Receiver and Manager's conduct. It was submitted that the onus was on Mr Ranteri to establish the grounds or case for enquiry (See Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 and Trollope v Rambaldi as Trustee for the Bankrupt Estate of Barry Barton Trollope [2009] FCA 74. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] NSWCA 64" id="cs5">In addition the court will also have in such cases the discretion to determine the utility of an inquiry and its likely outcomes. For 'although the court is given a broad discretion under s 179 of the Act, that discretion must be exercised in the interests of the orderly administration of the bankrupt's estate': Re Challen (a Bankrupt); Ex parte Brown v Bendeich (unreported, Federal Court, Beaumont J, No QB 1548 of 1993, 23 April 1996) cited with approval by Merkel in Cheesman at first instance, at [(1997) 143 ALR 78] 114. "

(See also Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 at [29] ---[30]. )

 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 74" id="cs6">In opposing the first order sought by the Bankrupt, the Trustee contends that no inquiry should be ordered, and that the onus is on the fourth applicant to establish the grounds or case for an inquiry; see Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 at [30] . According to the Trustee, no allegation of misconduct or error on the part of the Trustee personally has been made; see Trkulja v Morton [2005] 3 ABC (NS) 231 at [4]. It is agreed by both parties that the Trustee was not present during the execution of the search warrant on 5 October 2007, and that he has not reviewed any privileged material. The respondents argue that the applicants have failed to identify or establish any grounds for an inquiry into the Trustee's conduct, and that the Court should therefore not conduct such an inquiry. The respondents further submit that to order an inquiry would subject the Trustee and creditors to unnecessary expense and trouble, see Re Gault [1981] FCA 167 ; [1981] 57 FLR 165 , at 173, and that the cost of removing the Trustee and engaging a new Trustee would be both unnecessary and wasteful in the circumstances.  In Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 , Besanko J considered that s 179 of the Act may involve the Court in an investigation in two stages. His Honour went on to observe, at [30];

 '... First, the court must consider whether there is a basis to inquire into the conduct of a trustee in bankruptcy. Secondly, if an inquiry is undertaken, the court must consider what, if any, order should be made as a result of the inquiry.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1977" id="cs7">In particular, s 60 applies only to proceedings on foot when a bankruptcy commences. It had no application in Jury or Dudzinski. By contrast in Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 (which counsel for Mr Boensch suggested was decided contrary to Jury and Dudzinski and without referring to them) Besanko J considered an appeal instituted before the appellant was made bankrupt. Section 60 applied directly. There was no occasion to refer to Jury or Dudzinski which each proceeded from different statutory foundations. 10 Examination of this issue sheds light on the quality of the case necessary to order that an inquiry be held under s 179 of the Act. A Full Court said recently that 'a clear case must be made out to warrant an inquiry' ( Maxwell-Smith v Donnelly [2006] FCAFC 150 at [53] ; see also Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 at [30] . The necessity to establish some adequate foundation for removal of a trustee has been long established. In Miller v Cameron [1936] HCA 13 ; (1936) 54 CLR 572 Dixon J with whom Evatt and McTiernan JJ agreed) said (at 580 --- 581):

 'The jurisdiction to remove a trustee is exercised with a view to the interests of the beneficiaries, to the security of the trust property and to an efficient and satisfactory execution of the trusts and a faithful and sound exercise of the powers conferred upon the trustee. In deciding to remove a trustee the Court forms a judgment based upon considerations, possibly large in number and varied in character, which combine to show that the welfare of the beneficiaries is opposed to his continued occupation of the office. Such a judgment must be largely discretionary. A trustee is not to be removed unless circumstances exist which afford ground upon which the jurisdiction may be exercised. ' </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 585" id="cs8">

9 The matter referred to the Federal Court by Lindsay FM was heard by Besanko J. His Honour dismissed Mr Moore's application for an order directing Mr Macks not to implement his decision to abandon the appeals in the primary action: Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10. Mr Moore's appeal from that decision (SAD 7 of 2007), the second appeal of present relevance, has also been listed for hearing on 15 May 2007. The grounds of appeal in this matter assert:

 "The legal principles governing the evidence and procedures were not properly applied. Admissible evidence was excluded. The judge acted unfairly and was biased. "

Then follow about forty paragraphs of alleged errors, assertions of wrongdoings by third parties, and generalised complaints.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 509" id="cs9">9 On 15 January 2007, Besanko J determined that the application by Mr Moore for an order directing Mr Macks not to implement his decision to abandon the appeals from the primary judgment should be dismissed: see Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10. Mr Moore has also appealed from that decision. That appeal is also listed for hearing on 15 May 2007 in the Full Court. It is to be heard with the other appeal. It is in respect of those two appeals that Mr Macks has now sought orders for security for costs. I will call them the current appeals.
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 24" id="cs10">5 For a more detailed description of the facts and relevant events I refer to my reasons for judgment in Moore v Macks [2007] FCA 10 ('the Moore v Macks judgment').</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 33 Adjournment, amendment of process and extension and abridgment of times</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 60 Stay of legal proceedings</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 178 Appeal to Court against trustee's decision etc.</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 179 Control of trustees by the Court</title>
<title id="l5">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 </title>
<title id="l6">FEDERAL MAGISTRATES ACT 1999 - SECT 39 Discretionary transfer of proceedings to the Federal Court or the Family Court</title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">service of originating process out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">whether the proceeding is one to which federal court rules o 8 r 1 applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">claims based on misleading and deceptive conduct in australia in contravention of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">breach in the united states of contract made in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">breach of duty of confidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">breach of fiduciary duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">breach of confidence and breach of fiduciary duty alleged to have occurred in the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">whether causes of action must be wholly within one or more of the heads enumerated in rule 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">whether a prima facie case disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">proceeding not one to which o 8 r 1 applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">application adjourned</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 450">leave to amend statement of claim and to file further evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">liability of retail vendor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">injury sustained by employee of purchaer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">retail of goods containing asbestos dust and fibres</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">additional factor required to establish a duty of care between vendor and purchaser</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">laundess v laundess applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">discussion of additional factor</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">goods not dangerous in themselves</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">discussion of determination that a defendant "ought to know" of a danger</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">reasonable foreseeability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">scope of duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">standard of care</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">how standard of care to be determined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">necessity to carry out evaluation required by wyong shire council v shirt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2005] NSWCA 435">need to identify with sufficient precision what reasonable person in position of tortfeasor would do by way of response to the reasonably foreseeable risk. d</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">service out of the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">alleged contraventions of trade practices act and breaches of fiduciary duty by subsidiaries of company incorporated in united kingdom</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">reliance upon representations and conduct within australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">criteria for grant of leave to serve out of the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">whether action within jurisdiction of the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">whether party properly joined</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">whether prima facie case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 532">leave granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">regie nationale des usines renault sa v zhang  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">allegedly negligent design and manufacture overseas of motor vehicle by foreign company registered, but not carrying on business, in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">continuing damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action commenced in new south wales supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">supreme court declined to exercise its jurisdiction and stayed the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether exercise of discretion miscarried</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">relationship between supreme court rules authorising orders declining jurisdiction and judicial decisions on forum non conveniens</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether supreme court a clearly inappropriate forum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">relevance of circumstance that foreign law is to be applied as the lex causae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether discretion to grant stay of proceedings should be re-exercised.  private international law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">choice of law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">tort</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">allegedly negligent design and manufacture overseas of motor vehicle by foreign company registered, but not carrying on business, in australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.17">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">continuing damage suffered in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.18">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether french law would be the lex causae applied in a trial in new south wales -whether australian common law should recognise the lex loci delicti as the substantive law to be applied in actions for torts committed in a foreign law area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.19">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether the "double actionability" rule applies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.20">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether a single choice of law rule should be adopted consistently in australia in respect of both international and intranational torts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.21">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether "flexible exception" applies to recognition of lex causae</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.22">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">whether public policy exceptions applicable to lex causae .  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.23">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.24">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">requirements as to pleadings of applicant on a stay motion seeking to rely upon a foreign lex causae .  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.25">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.26">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.27">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">cause of action arising out of jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.28">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">motor vehicle accident in new caledonia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.29">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">action brought in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.30">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">plaintiff alleges defective design and manufacture of the motor vehicle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.31">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">defendants not present in new south wales</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.32">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">plaintiff relies on "long arm" provision in supreme court rules and damage in jurisdiction to found action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.33">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">application by defendants for stay</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.34">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">applicable law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.35">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.36">cited from="[2002] HCA 10">forum non conveniens .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">service of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">application to set aside service of originating process outside the jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">whether causes of action relied upon fall within the itemised cases contained in order 8 rule 1</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">whether it is necessary for an applicant to show a prima facie case on each cause of action relied upon</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 25">in relation to a claim under s.52 of the trade practices act 1974 , necessity to show that the respondent carries on business in australia.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 366">category: no</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 366" id="cs0">In relation to the second element, in my view one or more of those claims (see [7] to [8]) falls within items mentioned in the table in O 8 r 2. The substance of those causes of action (item 1) arose in Australia: Distillers Co (Bio-chemicals) Ltd v Thompson [1971] 1 NSWLR 83 at 90; Webster Computer Systems Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd [2007] FCA 825 at [13]; Anabelle [2007] FCA 1190 at [13] - [15]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 735" id="cs1">This proceeding is of a kind described in Item 13 of the Table to O 8 r 2. It is sufficient for the grant of leave if any one of the causes of action falls within an item in the Table to O 8 r 2 ( Webster Computer Systems Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd [2007] FCA 825 at [11] and [12] per Conti J). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 288" id="cs2">I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Conti J, which were handed down on 29 May 2007 (see Webster Computer Systems Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd [2007] FCA 825). Without repeating the reasons for judgement expressed by me in Anabelle Bits Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd [2007] FCA 1190 on 26 July 2007 and the further reasons given by me in relation to a similar application in that matter earlier today, it seems clear to me that there is sufficient material to indicate that the Court has jurisdiction in the proceeding number NSD 306 of 2007 and that the proceeding is of a kind mentioned in Order 8 rule 2. Evidence from the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department demonstrates that there is no convention, treaty or other agreement in force between Australia and Japan on the service of documents in civil proceedings. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1190" id="cs3">10 In a substantially similar case ( Webster Computer Systems Pty Limited v Fujitsu Limited NSD 306 of 2007) which is presently in Cowdroy J's docket, Conti J made an order on 9 May which was the subject of his Honour's reasons for judgment of 29 May ( Webster Computer Systems Pty Ltd v Fujitsu Ltd [2007] FCA 825). Conti J ordered as follows:

 'The applicant have leave pursuant to Order 8 Rule 3(2) of the Federal Court Rules to serve the application and statement of claim on the first respondent by using the diplomatic channel. ' </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l2">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 42 Reference of certain questions to Products Safety Committee</title>
<title id="l3">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 52 Object of Division</title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 82 Certificate of analyst</title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 87 Publication of certain statements prohibited</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1575">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1575">visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1575">protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1575">refugee review tribunal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1575">application for review of rrt decision affirming a decision of a delegate of the minister refusing to grant a protection visa</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1575">applicants are citizens of bangladesh claiming fear of persecution for reasons of membership of social group and political opinion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2007] FMCA 1575">whether tribunal breached migration act 1958 (cth) s.424a .</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">szbyr v minister for immigration and citizenship  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants were refused a visa under s 36(2) of the migration act 1958 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the appellants gave a statutory declaration to the refugee review tribunal ("the tribunal")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">the tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a visa partly on the basis of discrepancies between the statutory declaration and the appellants' oral evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief was available to the appellants.  immigration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">refugees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">s 424a of the act , read with s 441a , requires that an applicant be given written notice of particulars of any information that would be a reason or a part of the reason for affirming a decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether s 424a applied to the appellants' statutory declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">temporal scope of s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal breached s 424a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether the tribunal committed jurisdictional error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "information"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether "information" included discrepancies or inadequacies in previously submitted evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">meaning of "reason, or a part of the reason".  administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">constitutional writs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">certiorari and mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">impact of discretionary considerations governing availability of relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">cited from="[2007] HCA 26">whether relief should be denied on discretionary grounds for lack of a convention nexus.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">migration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">application for protection visa refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">tribunal's understanding of the word 'persecution'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">s 424a of migration act 1958</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">whether information was 'the reason or part of the reason' for affirming the decision under review</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">meaning of 'information'</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">identification of the 'reason' for decision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">an interpretative task</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 123">discretionary ground to refuse relief</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 36 Protection visas</title>
<title id="l2">MIGRATION ACT 1958 - SECT 424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal</title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1873">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1873">where company sent "asx release" to stock exchange containing misleading and deceptive statements in relation to disinfectant products supplied by company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1873">whether chief executive of company liable under corporations act 2001 (cth) s 1041h for engaging in conduct "in relation to" a financial product or financial service that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1873">releases referring to disinfectant products not notices, statements or representations "in relation to" shares and securities in the company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1873">chief executive not liable as a principal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">certain slendertone products as existed in 2000</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">orders following delivery of reasons for judgement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">findings of fact appropriately in orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">no basis to include declarations not going to offending conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">appropriateness of injunctions in absence of undertakings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">inactivity of business not outweigh public interest in orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 244">limited possible effect on third party not preclude corrective orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1311">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1311">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1311">declaratory and injunctive relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1311">consent orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1311">power to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1311">whether appropriate to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">price-fixing understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 254">consideration of principles applicable to the imposition of an appropriate penalty for making and giving effect to the price-fixing understanding</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">remedies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">orders sought by consent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">declarations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">whether appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">form of declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">monetary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 517">whether amounts appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">application to further re-amend application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">proposed deletion of application for order for refund of monies paid by members of the public</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">proposed substitution of order for making of findings of fact pursuant to s 83 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">no findings yet made of contravening conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">no application presently made for compensation orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">no present evidence of third party consents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 303">leave granted to amend application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">rural press limited v australian competition and consumer commission  australian competition and consumer commission v rural press limited  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">exclusionary provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">arrangement between regional newspaper publishers providing that one would withdraw newspaper services from the prime circulation area of the other</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether provision had purpose of preventing, restricting or limiting supply of services to, or acquisition of services from, particular persons or classes of persons</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 4d, 45 (2)(a)(i), 45 (2)(b)(i).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.5">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">where regional newspaper publisher threatened to circulate new newspaper in prime circulation area of a second regional newspaper publisher, unless second publisher ceased circulation of its own newspaper in first publisher's prime circulation area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.6">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">where second publisher subsequently ceased circulation of newspaper in first publisher's prime circulation area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.7">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether an "arrangement"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.8">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether arrangement had purpose or effect of substantially lessening competition</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.9">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 45(2)(a)(ii) , 45 (2)(b)(ii).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.10">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">accessorial liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.11">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether officers of newspaper publisher were "involved in" publisher's contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.12">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether officers participated in or assented to contraventions with actual knowledge of essential elements constituting the contraventions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.13">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 75b(1), 76 (1), 80 (1).  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.14">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">misuse of market power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.15">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">whether publisher took advantage of market power in its prime circulation area in threatening to enter prime circulation area of second publisher</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.16">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s 46(1).  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.17">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.18">cited from="[2003] HCA 75">form of declarations.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">corporations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">co-operatives</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">scheme of arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">disclosure of takeover proposal with commentary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">commentary held to be misleading</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">voting by postal ballot</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">procedure for replacement of postal votes held to be invalid; trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1999] NSWSC 991">spheres of application of trade practices act, fair trading act, australian securities and investments commission act and corporations law  acts cited:  australian securities and investments commission act 1900 (cth), ss 5(3), 12ae, 12ba, 12da, 12ge, 12gh, 12gj  co-operatives act 1992 (nsw), ss 6 , 8 , 106 , 107 , 112 , 176 , 188 , 193 , 194 , 199 , 266 , 316 , 354</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">representations as to prospective rental returns made prior to purchase</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">whether representations of current belief as to future matter is a representation with respect to a future matter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[1993] FCA 524">whether application to amend pleadings after evidence closed and written submissions filed should be granted.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">penalties under part iv of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) ("the act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">statutory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">construction of s. 80 of the act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">cited from="[1992] FCA 474">appropriateness and form of a permanent injunction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1989] HCA 24">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1989] HCA 24">third party liability</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1989] HCA 24">extent of cover</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1989] HCA 24">employee injured while loading motor vehicle from unsafe forklift</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1989] HCA 24">employer liable for damages</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1989] HCA 24">whether liability "in respect of . . . motor vehicle"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1989] HCA 24">motor vehicles insurance act 1936 (q.),s. 3(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">workers' compensation (q.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">statutory insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">whether extending to accident insurance</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">employer's statutory duty to insure against liability to pay damages in respect of inquiry</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">damages for nervous shock sustained by wife of injured worker consequent on his injury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">policy of statute to provide only for injuries arising in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">whether enlarged by "in respect of"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 49">workers' compensation act 1916 (q.), ss. 8(1), 9a.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">misleading or deceptive conduct by corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">liability of persons aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring or party to contravention by corporation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">whether knowledge of material facts necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">whether knowledge that facts constitute contravention necessary</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1985] HCA 65">trade practices act 1974 (cth),ss. 52, 75b, 82</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">consumer protection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">conduct likely to mislead or deceive</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">selling goods virtually identical to goods manufactured by another</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">goods tagged with manufacturer's label</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1982] HCA 44">trade practices act 1974 (cth), s. 52(1)*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">stamp duties (n.s.w.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">deed between company and trustees establishing pension scheme for its employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">funds not transferred to trustees upon execution of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">employees entitled to be admitted to scheme by trustees upon nomination by board of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">"declaration of trust"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">"vested or to be vested"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">"mentioned"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">exemption from duty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">"all instruments relating to the services of apprentices, clerks, and servants"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">"relating to"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.10">cited from="[1961] HCA 35">stamp duties act, 1920-1956 (n.s.w.), pt iii, second schedule, "declaration of trust" par. (2), general exemptions from stamp duty under pt iii, par. (5).</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">FINANCIAL SERVICES REFORM ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l2">FINANCIAL SECTOR REFORM (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) ACT 1998 </title>
<title id="l3">AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION REGULATIONS 2001 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">application to replace applicant in claimant application under s 66b of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">whether applicant no longer authorised by native title claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 25">whether persons bringing application authorised by claim group to make the application and to deal with matters arising under it</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">determination of native title rights and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">application for joinder of additional respondents post-hearing and judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">application for separate and additional determination post-hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">proposed terms of draft determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">definition of determination area</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">offshore areas</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">intertidal zone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">areas beyond intertidal zone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">definition of native title rights and interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2005] FCA 1567">definition of other interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 555">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 555">application for an order revoking an earlier order to which consent had been given in error</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 555">order revoked in absence of prejudice apart from cost</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 285" id="cs0">Although the position is not clear, I am inclined to the view that the reference to interlocutory orders in O 35 r 7(2)(c) should not be treated as including an order that proceedings be dismissed. To treat such an order in that way would completely undermine its effect. Tamberlin J appears to have taken that view in his decision in Kullilli People # 2 and Kullilli People #3 v State of Queensland  Ors [2007] FCA 512 at [16] . His Honour did not dispose of the case on that basis. He rather disposed of it upon a discretionary basis.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 555" id="cs1">Nevertheless, treating the application to vary the second part of the orders of 18 March 2008 as an independent motion, the governing principles it was suggested are dealt with in the cases examining O 35 r 7(2)(c) of the Federal Court Rules . It was submitted that the discretion to vary or set aside an order pursuant to O 35 r 7(2) of the Federal Court Rules will only be exercised in exceptional circumstances: Australian Competition  Consumer Commission v Black on White Pty Ltd [2004] FCA 363 ; (2004) 138 FCR 314 per Spender J at [14]-[16]; Kullilli People No. 2 and Kullilli People No 3 v Queensland [2007] FCA 512 per Tamberlin J at [17]; Dudzinski v Centrelink [2003] FCA 308 per Spender J at [11]; Paras v Public Service Body Head of Department of Infrastructure (No 2) (2006) 152 IR 352 per Young J at [4]; Wati v Minister for Immigration  Multicultural Affairs (1997) 78 FCR 543 per curiam at 549-552. </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 61 Native title and compensation applications</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">inspection</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">civil proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">documents containing notes by cabinet officers of cabinet deliberations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">application to inspect</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">public interest immunity</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">inspection by court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1993] HCA 24">confidential inspection by legal advisers.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">conspiracy to effect a purpose that is unlawful under a law of the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">proposed borrowing in contravention of financial agreement 1927</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), ss. 57 , 61 , 105a , 128</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">constitution alteration (state debts) 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement 1927, cll. 3, 4, 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1928 (cth), s. 2</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement validation act 1929 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">financial agreement act 1944 (cth), s. 3</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">crimes act 1914 (cth), s. 86.  evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">subpoena duces tecum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.11">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim of privilege by crown and individual litigant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.12">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">scope of privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.13">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">cabinet documents and similar papers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.14">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">prior publication by tabling in parliament and otherwise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.15">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">disclosure of proceedings of parliament without leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.16">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">private prosecution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.17">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">difficulty of proving charges without production of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.18">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">form of affidavits claiming privilege</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.19">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">balance of competing interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.20">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">justices act, 1902 (n.s.w.), s. 26.  declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.21">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">jurisdiction in relation to criminal proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.22">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">commital proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.23">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">claim for declaration by informant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.24">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.25">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">supreme court act, 1970 (n.s.w.), s. 75</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.26">cited from="[1978] HCA 43">high court rules, o. 26, r. 19.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 922">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 922">discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 922">public interest immunity</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 196" id="cs0">I have had the benefit of very helpful submissions from senior counsel for both the State and Sportsbet Pty Ltd (Sportsbet). The general principles applicable to a claim for public interest immunity at this stage of the proceeding are the common law principles: Mann v Carnell [1999] HCA 66 ; (1999) 201 CLR 1 ; Queanbeyan City Council v ACTEW Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 1983 ; (2008) 253 ALR 121 at [7] per Stone J. Those principles are conveniently set out in the reasons for judgment of McLellan CJ in Murrumbidgee Ground-Water Preservation Association v Minister for Natural Resources [2003] NSWLEC 322 at [19] , and by Jagot J in Betfair Pty Ltd v Racing New South Wales (No 7) [2009] FCA 1140 ; (2009) 181 FCR 66. In determining the claim for public interest immunity, the Court may inspect the documents in issue, although as a starting point it is not routinely done. As was said in Commonwealth v Northern Land Council (1991) 30 FCR 1 at 36-37, the Court should conduct a "kind of anticipatory balancing exercise" to decide whether a document should be inspected. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 922" id="cs1">While the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) by s 130 permits a Court to admit into evidence information and documents that relate to matters of state if the public interest in doing so outweighs the interest in preserving the secrecy or confidentiality in the information or documents, this provision does not apply in interlocutory proceedings such as these: Queanbeyan City Council v ACTEW Corporation Ltd [2008] FCA 1983 ; (2008) 253 ALR 121 , [7] per Stone J. Accordingly, it is necessary to consider the issue on general law principles. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] VSCA 250" id="cs2">[140]
234 It was the contention of the Minister, that an analysis of the proportionality of the five per cent contribution would require consideration of the cost and effect of all subdivisions within the municipality and not merely the particular subdivision in issue.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">UTILITIES (NETWORK FACILITIES TAX) ACT 2006 </title>
<title id="l1">WATER RESOURCES ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l2">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 </title>
<title id="l3">ACTS INTERPRETATION ACT 1901 - SECT 15AB Use of extrinsic material in the interpretation of an Act</title>
<title id="l4">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT </title>
<title id="l5">COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 90 Exclusive power over customs, excise, and bounties</title>
<title id="l6">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 </title>
<title id="l7">EVIDENCE ACT 1995 - SECT 130 Exclusion of evidence of matters of state</title>
<title id="l8">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l9">MAGISTRATES ACT </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">MIGRATION ACT 1958 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>