Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">aboriginal and torres strait islanders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">motions to replace applicants in native title determination applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">asserted withdrawal of authorisation by native title claim group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">conferral of authority on new applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">authorisation to apply for removal of applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">adequacy of evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">defined native title claim groups</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">meetings of persons asserting membership of native title claim groups</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">no direct evidence as to connection with native title claim groups</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">no evidence as to representativeness of meetings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.11">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">necessary authorisation not established</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.12">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">applications dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.13">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">combination applications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.14">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">dependent upon success of amendment of applications to change applicants</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.15">cited from="[2004] FCA 760">combination applications dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">consent determination covering part of the area of the native title determination application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">proposed native title holder group different from description of native title claim group in application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">whether proceedings affected by possible defect in authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">whether order should be made pursuant to s 84d(4)(b) of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">whether determination should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">requirements of s 87</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">whether proposed consent determination within power and appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">statutory preconditions of s 87 satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 518">appropriate to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">consent determination covering part of the area of the native title determination application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">proposed native title holder group different from description of native title claim group in application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether proceedings affected by possible defect in authorisation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether order should be made pursuant to s 84d(4)(b) of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether determination should be made pursuant to s 87 or s 87a of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">requirements of s 87a</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">whether proposed consent determination within power and appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">statutory preconditions of s 87a satisfied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 516">appropriate to make orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">application to replace current applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">s 66b of the native title act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">whether proposed applicants are descendants of apical ancestors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">authorisation meeting</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">construction of authorisation resolution</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">whether conflict of interests</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 102">exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 743">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 743">where one of several persons authorised under s 251b, native title act 1993 (cth) has died</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 743">whether remaining authorised persons may apply to remove name of deceased person as a party</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 743">whether it is necessary under s 251b for native title claim group to authorise a new person or persons to maintain and deal with matters arising in relation to application and for application under s 66b(1) to replace applicant  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 743">(1) remaining authorised persons may apply under s 62a or order 6 rule 9 federal court rules to remove name of deceased person as a party, and may continue to deal with matters arising in relation to application; (2) terms of authorisation impliedly authorised remaining authorised persons to continue as the applicant; (3) it is not necessary for fresh authorisation under s 251b and application under s 66b to replace applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1110">category: no</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 533">native title</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 533">application under s 66b of the native title act 1993 (cth) to replace current applicant to a native title determination</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 533">whether claim group meeting was representative</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 533">whether authorisation of replacement applicant was effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 533">whether application was affected by the death of two persons authorised by claim group to comprise the replacement applicant before application was heard</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 518" id="cs0">The parties acknowledge in their joint submissions that 2 of the 7 persons named as the applicant have died since the application was amended in 1999. A question therefore arises as to whether the other 5 persons are authorised to deal with all matters arising in relation to the application pursuant to the Native Title Act . Where the terms of the authorisation encompass and accommodate the death or incapacity of any one, or more, of the persons named as applicant, for example, by making express provision for the on-going or continuing authorisation of the remaining persons who comprise the applicant following the death or incapacity of any other named applicant, the remaining person or persons named applicants may continue to deal with all matters arising under the Native Title Act in relation to the application: Anderson v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1733 at [37] ; Coyne v Western Australia [2009] FCA 533 at [56] ; Roe v Western Australia (No. 2) [2011] FCA 102 at [149] ; cf Lennon v South Australia [2010] FCA 743. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 516" id="cs1">The parties acknowledge in their joint submissions that 7 of the 15 persons named as the applicant are now deceased since the application was filed in 1999. A question therefore arises as to whether the other 8 persons are authorised to deal with all matters arising in relation to the application pursuant to the Native Title Act . Where the terms of the authorisation encompass and accommodate the death or incapacity of any one, or more, of the persons named as applicant, for example, by making express provision for the on-going or continuing authorisation of the remaining persons who comprise the applicant following the death or incapacity of any other named applicant, the remaining person or persons named as applicant may continue to deal with all matters arising under the Native Title Act in relation to the application: Anderson v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1733 at [37] ; Coyne v Western Australia [2009] FCA 533 at [56] ; Roe v Western Australia (No. 2) [2011] FCA 102 at [149] ; cf Lennon v South Australia [2010] FCA 743. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 102" id="cs2">(e) Resolution 5 does not provide any basis for concluding that if some but not all of the persons authorised to be the applicant are not eligible, that the remaining eligible persons are authorised to continue to act as the applicant. The fact that resolution 6 makes no provision for what should happen in that event reinforces that conclusion. (f) In Anderson v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1733 French J considered the effect of a resolution authorising certain named persons "or such of them as are willing and able to act in respect of the application in the future" to be the applicant in circumstances where one of the individuals had died since authorisation was given. French J found at [37] that authorisation was subject, in the case of each individual, to his or her continuing willingness or capacity to act. The death of one of the authorised persons meant that the balance of the named applicants were authorised by the meeting.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 743" id="cs3">The resolution relevantly authorised the named persons "... or such of them as are eligible to act as an applicant and who remain willing and able to act in respect of the application in the future" to make and deal with matters arising in relation to the application. The authorisation itself therefore encompassed and accommodated that circumstance. His Honour followed a decision of French J (as he then was) in Anderson v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1733 where a similar circumstance had arisen in relation to a similarly worded authorisation, albeit under the statutory regime which existed prior to the 2007 Amending Act. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1110" id="cs4">I am satisfied that, on that evidence, the authorisation meeting was sufficiently representative of the native title claim group to be competent to make decisions on behalf of the claim group for the purposes of s 251B of the Act. (See, Anderson v Western Australia [2007] FCA 1733 at [36] . ) </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 533" id="cs5">

 40 French J had cause again to consider the question of whether a meeting of a claim group was sufficiently representative to comprise the source of the revocation of the authority of the existing applicant and the authorisation of a replacement applicant, in the case of Anderson v State of Western Australia [2007] FCA 1733 ( Anderson ).</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 </title>
<title id="l1">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 66B Replacing the applicant</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">after acquired income</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">assessment for contribution by trustee in bankruptcy</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">basis of assessment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">payment by family members to bankrupt</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">in respect of legal representation, secretarial, office, telephone services and travel</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">whether notional fringe benefits to be treated as income for purposes of contribution provisions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">whether required to be "in respect of employment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">statutory construction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">extrinsic materials</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">second reading speech</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">explanatory memorandum</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">remedial statute</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[1994] FCA 1411">broad construction.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">collision between motor vehicles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">no direct evidence of negligence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">matter of inference from proved facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">sufficiency of facts to support inference.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">direction to jury</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">inference of negligence open on proved circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">whether inference should be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">defendant able to explain facts from which inference sought to be drawn</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">failure of defendant to give evidence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">what reliance to be placed by jury on such failure in deciding whether or not to draw inference</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.12">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">nature of direction to jury.  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.13">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">non-suit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.14">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">verdict by direction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.15">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.16">cited from="[1959] HCA 8">application in new south wales.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 </title>
<title id="l1">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 30 General powers of Courts in bankruptcy</title>
<title id="l2">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 80 Notification of change in name, address or day-time telephone number</title>
<title id="l3">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 139J Objects of Division</title>
<title id="l4">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 139K Definitions</title>
<title id="l5">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 139L Meaning of income</title>
<title id="l6">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 139ZA Internal review of assessment</title>
<title id="l7">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 139ZF Review of assessment decisions</title>
<title id="l8">BANKRUPTCY ACT 1966 - SECT 178 Appeal to Court against trustee's decision etc.</title>
<title id="l9">FRINGE BENEFITS TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1986 </title>
<title id="l10">BANKRUPTCY REGULATIONS 1996 </title>
<title id="l11">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1642">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1642">summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">income tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">commissioner published guidelines to effect that he would concede confidentiality in respect of, and deny himself access to, certain advising papers of external accountants, unless he or an officer of a certain rank of the australian taxation office ("ato") should decide that there were "exceptional circumstances"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">in proceedings before the court, being appeals under part ivc of the taxation administration act 1953 (cth), taxpayers gave discovery, and claimed that certain documents discovered were covered by the "accountants' concession" within the guidelines</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">officer of appropriate rank within the ato decided that there were exceptional circumstances, and approved of access to the documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">different ato officer caused a notice to produce the documents to issue to taxpayers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">taxpayers issued this present proceeding challenging the senior officer's decision allowing access, under s 5 of the administrative decisions (judicial review) act 1977 (cth) ("ad(jr) act") and under s 39b(1) and (1a) of the judiciary act 1903 (cth) (" judiciary act ")</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">application for summary dismissal of proceeding based on suggested incompetency of present application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether decision to allow access was a "decision of an administrative character made ... under an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">whether guidelines were "an enactment"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">scope of "matter ... arising under any laws made by the parliament" within s 39b(1a)(c) of judiciary act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">test for summary dismissal under s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">meaning of "no reasonable prospect of success"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 511">held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">applicant alleges breaches of trade practices act 1974 (cth) and breach of contract</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">applicant seeks summary judgment for damages to be assessed on part of claim only</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">where applicant alleges an oral agreement between applicant and first respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">where respondents allege oral agreement with different terms</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">whether relevant part of claim can be determined with certainty without determination of factual issues at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">where applicant makes alternative claim for declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">whether declaratory relief should be granted in the circumstances</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">whether application for summary judgment should be brought pursuant to o 20 r 1 of the federal court rules or s 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth). held: terms of agreement cannot finally be determined without determination of factual issues at trial</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">applicant has not established any loss or damage or causation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">establishing loss or damage an essential element of the relevant cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.12">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">not an appropriate case for declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.13">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">real issue of fact will defeat application for summary judgment under either s 31a of the federal court of australia act or o 20 r 1 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.14">cited from="[2007] FCA 489">application dismissed.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">the two ministers and the commonwealth, by their present application to secure a "summary judgment", seek to have these proceedings stopped at this point as a matter of law, without the need to look at the evidence. they say that, even assuming that the allegations in mr hicks' claim are accepted, there is no reasonable prospect of success. part of the application by the ministers and the commonwealth for summary judgment is on the basis that this court cannot enter into a consideration of a case which may result in a finding that an action of a state other than australia</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">here, the united states</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 299">is unlawful. they say that there are no proper standards by which the court can resolve the issues raised by mr hicks because delicate questions of diplomatic negotiation between australia and the united states are involved and a finding by a court may impact on these relations.the question of mr hicks' internment is said to be "political" in nature and is one concerning foreign relations and these are areas into which the court should not intrude because the decision will involve standards which are "non-justiciable" and which a court cannot properly apply.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application for summary judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">summary dismissal of proceedings against certain respondents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">application of s 31a of the federal court of australia act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">inapplicability to applications to strike out parts of pleadings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">nature of "reasonable prospect" assessment required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit of respondents denying relevant knowledge</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit unanswered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">generality of affidavit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">affidavit material insufficient to demonstrate no reasonable prospect of success</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1401">motion for summary dismissal dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">application for summary dismissal of proceedings under section 31a of the federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">test to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">assignment of choses in action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages for breach of contract and under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.6">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where claim brought by person claiming to be assignee under a contract for sale of a business to enforce rights of assignor in contract and under section 51ac and s 52 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.7">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">where assignor company now deregistered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.8">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether purported assignment effective</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.9">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether statutory claim capable of assignment  assignment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.10">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.11">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">whether claim for damages under section 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) capable of assignment  held</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.12">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">claim for damages under s 82(1) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) not capable of assignment; pleadings fundamentally flawed and disclosed no reasonable prospect of success; proceedings summarily dismissed  words  phrases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.13">cited from="[2006] FCA 1352">"no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">summary power to terminate action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">principles applicable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">jurisdiction under rule of court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">high court rules, o. 26, r. 18.  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">use for services of commonwealth or state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.8">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"authority of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.9">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">commissioner for railways</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.10">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">construction of carriages for use in state railway system</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.11">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">"services of the state"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.12">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">written authority to use invention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.13">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">when contract itself sufficient authority</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.14">cited from="[1964] HCA 69">patents act 1952-1960 (cth), ss. 125, 132*.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">constitutional law (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">conciliation and arbitration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">jurisdiction of commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">log of claims by professional engineers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">employment described by reference to professional qualifications</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">engineers employed by state governments, agencies of state governments or municipal bodies</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">governmental character of employers</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">whether inconsistent with work being industrial in character</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">jurisdiction where some employees described in log not industrially employed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">the constitution (63  64 vict. c. 12), s. 51 (xxxv.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">conciliation and arbitration act 1904</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.11">cited from="[1959] HCA 47">1958 (cth), s. 4 (1), definitions of "industry" and "industrial dispute".</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">injury by accident arising out of or in course of employment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">death of worker</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">negligence of employer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">option of dependants to apply for compensation or take other proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">award of compensation obtained by widow on behalf of herself and children</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.6">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">effect of award as barring claim by dependants under lord campbell's act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.7">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">workers' compensation acts 1928</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.8">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">1946 (no. 3806</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.9">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">no. 5128) (vict.)*</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.10">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">wrongs act 1928 (no. 3807) (vict.), part iii.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.11">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">the 1946 workers' compensation rules, rr. 8, 81.*  practice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.12">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">supreme court (vict.)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.13">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">dismissal of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.14">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">abuse of process</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.15">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">inherent jurisdiction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.16">cited from="[1949] HCA 1">rules of the supreme court (vict.), order xxv., rr. 2, 4.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">summary judgment application made by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">defence raised by respondent under s 123 of trade marks act 1995 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">moving party bears the onus in a summary judgment application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">consideration of the test under s 31a of federal court of australia act 1976 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">respondent must show that because of the s 123 defence, the applicant has no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">consideration of whether the evidence reveals a real issue of fact to be resolved for the respondent's defence to succeed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">while s 31a lowers the threshold for summary judgment applications, the court must ensure that litigants are not unjustly shut out from litigating an issue that is fairly arguable</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">a pivotal fact raised by the respondent's defence not established and therefore respondent failed to discharge its onus  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">security for costs application made by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">applicant admitted to being impecunious</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">security for costs opposed because applicant could not meet an order in the amount sought and that would stifle the proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">citing from="[2010] FCA 544">staged payments found to be the best way to deal with the application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">offers to compromise made by respondent before and after the operation of federal court rules o 23 r 11(6)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">where respondent obtained more favourable judgment at trial than either offer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">where benefit of each offer sounds only in costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">whether "genuine" offers to compromise</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">whether costs should be ordered to be taxed on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">held, each offer "genuine"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">held respondent had failed to demonstrate that rejection of first offer imprudent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp12.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 381">held applicant had failed to demonstrate in respect of second offer that costs after that offer should be ordered to be taxed otherwise than on an indemnity basis</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">misleading or deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">passing on of information supplied by someone else</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">whether company adopts statements of another through display on website</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">where company neither expressly adopts nor expressly disclaims those statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">held an objective assessment should be made of whether the company adopts such statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">held in absence of own language, company cannot have been taken to have adopted the statements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 313">trade practices act 1974 (cth), ss 51a, 52 and 53</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1305">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1305">motion for summary dismissal of application</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1305">where no reasonable cause of action disclosed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1305">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1305">motion that affidavit be removed from file pursuant to o 14 r 8</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1305">motion that applicant's proceedings be declared vexatious and an order be made under o 21 r 1 or r 2  australian securities and investment commission act 2001 (cth) ss 12 ca-cc, 12 da, 12 dj, 12 gf, 12 gh</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1304">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1304">application for leave to appeal against interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1304">where no reasonable prospect of success for the proposed appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1304">application dismissed</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 544" id="cs0">Nonetheless, I respectfully agree with the views expressed by a number of judges of this Court to the effect that I should proceed with caution when dealing with an application of this kind so as to ensure that Noble is not unjustly shut out from litigating an issue that is fairly arguable: see Boston Commercial at [45] to [46] per Rares J; Unit 11 Pty Ltd v Sharpe Partners Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 43 ; (2006) 150 FCR 405 at [64] per Tamberlin J; Granitgard Pty Ltd v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 55 at [9] per Logan J and Keynes v Rural Directions Pty Ltd (No 2) (2009) 72 ACSR 264; [2009] FCA 567 at [47] per Besanko J. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 381" id="cs1">At that stage, a summary judgment application had been heard and was awaiting determination. Granitgard had some scientific advice in respect of what it thought was Termiglass which suggested that its properties were such that it did not provide an effective barrier to subterranean entry notwithstanding what was said in the CSIRO Appraisal. Granitgard disputed that what had been tested was truly what was or what came to be known as Termiglass. As events transpired I dismissed Termicide's summary judgment application early in the month which followed the making of the first offer, Granitgard Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 590 v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd ACN 093 837 337 [2008] FCA 55 but ultimately at trial concluded that Granitgard had not proved that the crushed glass which had been the subject of its then scientific advice was or was what came to be called Termiglass. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 313" id="cs2">Not all of Granitgard's allegations formed part of its case as originally formulated (qv Granitgard Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 590 v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd ACN 093 837 337 [2008] FCA 55). Rather, Granitgard sought to amend its case shortly prior to the originally allocated, June 2008 trial dates. In an application brought on while I was on leave it persuaded another judge, in the circumstances, to grant it leave further to amend its statement of claim and to vacate those trial dates (qv Granitgard Pty Ltd ACN 007 427 590 v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd ACN 093 837 337 [2008] FCA 865 A yet further amendment of Termicide's case was later made after a grant of leave by me in October 2008). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1305" id="cs3">41 The intent of s 31A is to enable summary judgment to be obtained even in circumstances where a consideration of prior authorities such as Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners [1949] HCA 1 ; (1949) 78 CLR 62 and General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125 , which had hitherto informed an assessment on summary judgment of no reasonable prospect of success, might have suggested that an application for summary judgment should be dismissed. In White Industries Aust Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 511 ; (2007) 160 FCR 298 Lindgren J made a number of observations in relation to the changes wrought by s 31A to the determination of a summary judgment application. Many other judges of this Court, including me (q v Granitgard Pty Ltd v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 55) , have gained assistance from those observations. Having regard to those observations, I approach the application made by the Respondents on the basis that a reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of the section is one which is real, not fanciful or merely arguable. So approaching the matter, my opinion is that the substantive application has no reasonable prospect of success.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1304" id="cs4">23 As to s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act , and as her Honour noted, the intent of that section is to enable summary judgment to be obtained even in circumstances where a consideration of prior authorities, such as Dey v Victorian Railway Commissioners [1949] HCA 1 ; (1949) 78 CLR 62 and General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways [1964] HCA 69 ; (1964) 112 CLR 125 , which had hitherto informed an assessment on summary judgment of no reasonable prospect of success, might have suggested that an application for summary judgment should be dismissed. Her Honour adopted observations made by Lindgren J in White Industries Aust Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2007] FCA 511 ; (2007) 160 FCR 298 in relation to the changes wrought by s 31A to the determination of a summary judgment application. Many other judges of this Court, including me (q v Granitgard Pty Ltd v Termicide Pest Control Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 55) , have gained assistance from those observations. As so informed, her Honour approached the application on the basis that a reasonable prospect of success for the purposes of the section was one which was real, not fanciful or merely arguable. My approach would have been no different.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 31A Summary judgment</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l3">MIGRATION LITIGATION REFORM ACT 2005 NO. 137, 2005 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">action for infringement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">interlocutory injunction</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[1968] HCA 1">principles governing grant or refusal.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">pre-action discovery of documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">order 15a rule 6 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">alleged misrepresentation of past turnover, predicted turnover and value of the business prior to sale of business</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">principles to be followed when granting a pre-action discovery order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">whether there is reasonable cause to believe the applicant has or may have the right to obtain relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">misunderstanding of financial evidence by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">provision of evidence to the applicant by fifth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">investigations of director of applicant not "evidence"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">whether applicant made all reasonable inquiries before applying under order 15a rule 6(b)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">no evidence that 4 of the 5 respondents were asked for the evidence sought   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">freezing order sought against properties of fourth respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">order 25a rule 2 of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">principles to be followed when granting a freezing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">whether there was a risk of dissipation of assets of the fourth respondent   held : application dismissed with costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.15">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">applicant did not satisfy the requirements of order 15a rule 6 for pre-action discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.16">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">the applicant failed to make all reasonable inquiries before applying for pre-action discover under order 15a rule 6</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.17">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">no reasonable cause to believe on the material that there was a cause of action</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.18">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">applicant did not satisfy the requirements of order 25a rule 2 for freezing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.19">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">no prima facie case established to support freezing order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.20">citing from="[2009] FCA 819">no evidence of risk of frustration or inhibition of court's process by fourth respondent if freezing order not made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">corporations law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">insolvency and administration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">deed of company arrangement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">application seeking termination of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">cross-claim seeking declaration of validity of deed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">false or misleading information contained in administrator's report to meeting of creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">deficiency in notice of meeting to creditors</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">terms of deed in unsatisfactory form</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">citing from="[2008] FCA 404">whether any proper reason for not making order for termination of deed and winding up of company</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 273">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 273">application for further discovery</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 273">proposed classes too broad or not relevant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 273">insufficiency of current discovery not shown.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">citing from="[2007] FCA 1411">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">citing from="[2007] FCA 1411">application for summary dismissal and to strike out defence to amended cross-claim</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">citing from="[2007] FCA 1411">defence of set-off</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">citing from="[2007] FCA 1411">defence of abatement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">citing from="[2007] FCA 1411">relief of abatement within scope of s 87 of the trade practices act 1974 (cth)</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 819" id="cs0">I form this view for the following reasons: As I have already found in the context of O 15A r 6, I am not satisfied on the material before me that there is reasonable cause to believe that the applicant has or may have the right to obtain relief in the Court. I have already observed that the standard of satisfaction required by O 15A r 6 is lower than that of a prima facie case. It follows that, similarly, the applicant has not established a prima facie case against the fourth respondent, in the sense that the applicant has not lead evidence which is sufficient to support its allegations and which will lead to judgment in its favour unless there is evidence which rebuts those allegations ( KGL Health [2007] FCA 1410 at [9] ). Even if I were satisfied that the applicant had a prima facie case against the fourth respondent, I am not persuaded that there is any risk of frustration or inhibition of the Court's process such as to justify a freezing order as sought by the applicant. The events complained of by the applicant occurred two years ago. Key aspects of the application of O 25A r 2 include: Exercising the power conferred by O 25A r 2 is at the discretion of the Court. The applicant must establish a prima facie cause of action against the respondent to warrant exercise of the power ( KGL Health Pty Ltd v Mechtler [2007] FCA 1410 at [4] - [5], Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Limited (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 at 321-322). The Court must be satisfied that there is a danger that the prospective judgment of the Court will be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the respondent's assets could be disposed of, dealt with or diminished. A freezing order should be viewed as an extraordinary interim remedy because it can restrict the right to deal with assets even before judgment ( KGL Health [2007] FCA 1410).  There is no suggestion by the applicant that these activities constitute dissipation of assets --- indeed the progress of these activities is anticipated by the revised draft freezing order. I note the evidence of Ms Cooley that a freezing order on her assets would stifle the growth of the new business operated by Mr Cartan and herself (affidavit of Jennifer Cooley sworn 23 July 2009 para 25). This impact on an unrelated business of Mr Cartan and Ms Cooley in my view is a factor I should take into consideration, in the sense that the freezing order is a "substantial encroachment on the basic right and freedom of the respondent to deal with ... her property" ( KGL Health [2007] FCA 1410 at [12] ).  Key aspects of the application of O 25A r 2 include: Exercising the power conferred by O 25A r 2 is at the discretion of the Court. The applicant must establish a prima facie cause of action against the respondent to warrant exercise of the power ( KGL Health Pty Ltd v Mechtler [2007] FCA 1410 at [4] - [5], Patterson v BTR Engineering (Aust) Limited (1989) 18 NSWLR 319 at 321-322). The Court must be satisfied that there is a danger that the prospective judgment of the Court will be wholly or partly unsatisfied because the respondent's assets could be disposed of, dealt with or diminished. A freezing order should be viewed as an extraordinary interim remedy because it can restrict the right to deal with assets even before judgment ( KGL Health [2007] FCA 1410). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 611" id="cs1">In KGL Health Pty Ltd v Mechtler [2007] FCA 1410 at [12] , Tamberlin J noted:
 The protection afforded by a preservation order to an applicant is a substantial encroachment on the basic right and freedom of the respondent to deal with his or her property. Practice Note 23 emphasises this point when it states that the purpose of the order is to prevent abuse of process and not to provide security in respect of the judgment. The restraint must be regarded as an extraordinary remedy because it restricts the right to deal with property even before judgment. This level of interference confirms the necessity of the person seeking the freezing order to provide sufficient oral or documentary evidence of his or her prima facie case. The mere making of allegations in correspondence or the assertion of a case in a Statement of Claim is not of itself ... sufficient to make out a good arguable case. [emphasis in original]
 </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 404" id="cs2">14 In relation to the absence of the lawyer's certificate, it is said that that is of no remaining significance as the cross-claim was filed by a solicitor on behalf of Meribal, thus, carrying with it the same assurance. Such a serious misstatement can hardly be swept aside in that fashion but, in any event, there is no explanation as to how, on the basis of the normal solicitor's assurance, a claim could be valued fully without discount to reflect the chances of failure and for costs ( KGL Health Pty Ltd v Mechtler [2007] FCA 1410). Counsel for Vatera points out that the only particularised claim at that time was $270,000. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 273" id="cs3">2 The background to and nature of the principal proceedings in this matter are set out in a previous judgment given by me in relation to an application by the applicants for an asset preservation order: see KGL Health Pty Limited v Mechtler [2007] FCA 1410. I will not reiterate those matters.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2007] FCA 1411" id="cs4">2 The background and the nature of the principal proceeding is set out in the judgment given by me in relation to an application by the applicants for an asset preservation order: see KGL Health Pty Limited v Mechtler [2007] FCA 1410. I will not repeat those matters here.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 </title>
<title id="l1">CORPORATIONS ACT 2001 - SECT 180 Care and diligence--civil obligation only</title>
<title id="l2">ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 </title>
<title id="l3">ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND ASSESSMENT ACT 1979 - SECT 76A Development that needs consent</title>
<title id="l4">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 </title>
<title id="l5">FAIR TRADING ACT 1987 - SECT 42 Reference of certain questions to Products Safety Committee</title>
<title id="l6">LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2004 </title>
<title id="l7">LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2004 - SECT 347 Restrictions on commencing proceedings without reasonable prospects of success</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">therapeutic goods</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">civil penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">relevant matters to be considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">agreement as to facts and penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">need to ensure a penalty is " appropriate "</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">scrutiny given to agreements</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">forfeiture</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.8">cited from="[2008] FCA 1545">declaratory relief</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">appeal</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">totality principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">whether appellable error in exercise of judicial discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">approach taken by primary judge legitimately available</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">no error demonstrated industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">whether multiple contraventions amounted to a single course of conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">whether totality principle should reduce aggregate sentence practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">sentencing principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">discount for plea of guilty not available only because it saves the cost of a contested hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[2008] FCAFC 70">need to show a willingness to facilitate the course of justice and/or acceptance of wrongdoing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">cited from="[2008] FCA 65">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">cited from="[2008] FCA 65">misleading and deceptive conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">cited from="[2008] FCA 65">consent declarations, injunctions and compliance programs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">cited from="[2008] FCA 65">scope of court's power</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">cited from="[2008] FCA 65">trade practices act 1974 (cth) ss 80 and 86c, federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) s 21</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">restrictive trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">alleged contraventions of ss 45(2)(a)(i) and (ii) and 45 (2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the trade practices act 1974 (cth) and the victorian competition code</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">respondents connected with supply of unshucked abalone</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">price-fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">exclusionary provision</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">respondents admitted alleged contraventions  trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">pecuniary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.8">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">agreement reached on penalties to be imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.9">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">factors relevant when fixing penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.10">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">principles governing agreed penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp3.11">cited from="[2007] FCA 1834">parity principle</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 1548">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 1548">employer admits breach of occupational health and safety act 1991 (cth) in respect of contractor over which it had control</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp4.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 1548">agreed facts and penalty jointly proposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">operation of o 35 r 2(2)(c) of the federal court rules</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">whether declaration should be made on deemed admissions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">where declaration sought as to validity of mortgage over ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">where declaration affects priority of other claims against ship</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">where other claimants have had opportunity to intervene</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.6">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">considerations in exercising discretion to make declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp5.7">cited from="[2007] FCA 815">declaration made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.0">cited from="[2007] FCA 662">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.1">cited from="[2007] FCA 662">industrial safety, health and welfare</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.2">cited from="[2007] FCA 662">the commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.3">cited from="[2007] FCA 662">penalties for breach of occupational health and safety (commonwealth employment) act 1991 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.4">cited from="[2007] FCA 662">appropriate considerations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp6.5">cited from="[2007] FCA 662">inadequacy of available sanctions as against commonwealth</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1534">procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1534">consent orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1534">whether within power of court to make</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp7.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1534">whether appropriate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.0">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">superannuation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.1">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">contravention of ss 62(1) and 109 (1) of the superannuation industry (supervision) act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.2">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">contraventions admitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.3">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">imposition of monetary penalty for breach of civil penalty provisions  civil penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.4">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">civil offences under superannuation industry (supervision) act 1993 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.5">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">agreed monetary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.6">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">principles and factors relevant to determining level of penalty when parties submit agreed monetary penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp8.7">cited from="[2005] FCA 1121">whether agreed penalty within "permissible range"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.0">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.1">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">civil penalties</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.2">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">contravention of s 16(1) of the environment protection and biodiversity conservation act 1999 (cth) (' epbc act ') by taking an action that had a significant impact on the ecological character of a declared ramsar wetland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.3">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">contravention deliberate</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.4">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">criteria to be taken into account</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.5">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">epbc act , s 481(3) environment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.6">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">prohibitory injunctions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.7">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">orders preventing further damage to wetland</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.8">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">repair orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.9">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">order to plant tree seedlings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp9.10">cited from="[2004] FCA 1317">epbc act , ss 475(2), 479</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.0">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.1">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.2">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">contravention of s 10 of the petroleum retail marketing sites act 1980 (cth)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.3">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">parties present joint submissions on the appropriate pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.4">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">direction under federal court of australia act 1976 (cth) asking whether the court must consider whether the proposed amount is within the permissible range and, if so, impose the "agreed" penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp10.5">cited from="[2004] FCAFC 72">powers and responsibilities of court faced with joint submission on penalty.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.0">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">trade practices</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.1">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">representations about opportunity to purchase motor vehicles free of goods and services tax</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.2">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">representation that no finance application would be refused</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.3">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">obscure qualification in small print concerning prior approval of purchasers to whom finance would be granted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.4">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">whether the representations concerned "the existence, exclusion or effect of any condition, warranty, guarantee, right or remedy" [s 53(g) of the trade practices act ].  practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.5">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">costs</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.6">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">negotiations between applicant and respondent concerning terms of undertaking to be given by respondent to applicant and appropriate remedial steps to be taken by respondent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.7">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">applicant fixed deadline for negotiations to be completed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.8">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">respondent requested extensions of deadline</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.9">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">applicant granted two such extensions but matter not resolved</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.10">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">proceedings instituted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.11">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">matter settled on basis that respondent admitted contravening s 52 and s 53(e) of the trade practices act , but not s 53(g)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.12">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">some of the remedial steps originally sought by the applicant were not included in the terms of settlement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.13">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">respondent consented to declarations to the effect that it had contravened s 52 and s 53(e), but contended that its conduct should not be the subject of declarations that it had contravened s 53(g), if it were found to have done so</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.14">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">whether as a matter of discretion such additional declarations should be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp11.15">cited from="[2000] FCA 1885">appropriate costs order.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.0">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">[ database search ] [ name search ] [ recent decisions ] [ noteup ] [ lawcite ] [ help ] n w frozen foods proprietary ltd v australian competition  consumer commission [1996] fca 1134 (20 december 1996)    trade practices act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.1">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalties under s.76 for contraventions of part iv</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.2">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">price fixing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.3">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of agreement between a.c.c.c. and corporation on joint submissions proposing particular orders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.4">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">desirability of settlement of such cases</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.5">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">penalty cases not criminal prosecutions</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.6">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">matters relevant to penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.7">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">object of ensuring compliance with the act by deterrence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.8">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">effect of undertaking by corporation of a compliance programme agreed with the commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.9">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">difficulties in comparing penalties in other cases with that proposed for the instant case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.10">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">importance of the particular market</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.11">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of identity of corporation to be penalised where it was a member of a group</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.12">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">significance of whether a corporation has previously contravened</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.13">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">inappropriateness of diminishing the credit to be given a corporation for co-operation and admission of liability by reference to any costs saving it may achieve thereby</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.14">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">reference to u.s. law conceding the u.s. federal trade commission "a special competence in formulating remedies"</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp13.15">cited from="[1996] FCA 1134">discussion of the question for the court where penalty is the subject of an agreed joint submission.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.0">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">administrative law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.1">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">natural justice</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.2">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice commission</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.3">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">requirement to report to parliamentary committee, speaker of legislative assembly and minister</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.4">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">report on gaming machine concerns and regulations</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.5">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">recommendation to exclude certain persons from gaming machine industry in state</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.6">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">no opportunity given to answer matters raised in reports</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.7">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether duty of procedural fairness</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.8">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">whether right or interest adversely affected</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.9">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">legitimate expectation</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.10">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">mandamus</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.11">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">certiorari</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.12">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">declaration</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.13">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">criminal justice act 1989 (q.), ss 2.1(1), 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 3.17, 3.21(2)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp14.14">cited from="[1992] HCA 10">gaming machine act 1991 (q.), s. 6.16(1).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.0">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.1">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">manslaughter</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.2">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">diminished responsibility</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.3">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.4">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.5">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">protection of community</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.6">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">preventive detention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.7">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">previous criminal history</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp15.8">cited from="[1988] HCA 14">relevance to sentencing.</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.0">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">high court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.1">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">appeal from state supreme court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.2">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">special leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.3">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">criminal case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.4">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.5">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">judiciary act 1903 (cth), s. 35(2).  criminal law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.6">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">sentence</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.7">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">co-offenders</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.8">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">disparity between sentences</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.9">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">interference by appellate court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.10">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">principles</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.11">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">imprisonment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.12">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.13">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">relationship between sentence and minimum time after which offender eligible for parole</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp16.14">cited from="[1984] HCA 46">offenders probation and parole act 1980 (q.), s. 53(3).</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.0">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.1">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">occupational health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.2">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">penalty hearing</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.3">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">failure to take reasonable steps to protect health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.4">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">statement of agreed facts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.5">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">agreed penalty and declarations as to contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.6">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">penalty assessment ultimately for the court</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.7">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.8">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">imposition of pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp17.9">citing from="[2011] FCA 530">declarations of contravention and award of costs considered</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">occupational health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">federal police officer unintentionally discharged pistol in office space</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">obligation of employees not to create risk or increase existing risk to persons at or near workplace</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">imposition of pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">agreed pecuniary penalty  industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">imposition of pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.7">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">factors relevant to determination of amount of penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.8">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">agreed pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp18.9">citing from="[2010] FCA 1220">significance of fact of agreement</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.0">citing from="[2010] FCA 793">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.1">citing from="[2010] FCA 793">occupational health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.2">citing from="[2010] FCA 793">civil penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.3">citing from="[2010] FCA 793">failure to take reasonable steps to protect health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.4">citing from="[2010] FCA 793">declaration as to contravention</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.5">citing from="[2010] FCA 793">imposition of pecuniary penalty</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp19.6">citing from="[2010] FCA 793">principles to be applied</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 771">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 771">occupational health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 771">breach of duty of employer to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety of the employer's employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 771">serious offending conduct</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 771">declaration of contravention made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp20.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 771">pecuniary penalty imposed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.0">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.1">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">occupational health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.2">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">breach of duty of employer to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.3">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">camp for cadets organised by scotch college cadet unit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.4">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">death of cadet with peanut allergy due to consumption of food with peanuts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.5">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">systemic failure to ensure appropriate use of medical information collated for purpose of camp when distributing food</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.6">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">pecuniary penalty sought</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.7">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">factors to take into account   practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.8">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">civil proceedings</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.9">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">use of victim impact statements   industrial law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.10">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">occupational health and safety</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.11">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">breach of duty of employer to take all reasonably practicable steps to protect the health and safety of employees</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.12">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">group of cadets lost overnight without proper communication equipment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.13">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">request for adjournment based on the applicant considering that an appropriate undertaking is in force</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp21.14">citing from="[2009] FCA 700">whether court must be satisfied undertaking is reasonable</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2011] FCA 530" id="cs0">The parties agree, and I accept, that the Court should inform itself of the facts relevant to the grant of declaratory relief by reference to the statement of agreed facts, the admissions contained in Australia Post's Defence, and the parties' consent to the granting of the declaratory relief. This is consistent with the approach taken in other cases involving clause 2 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the OHS Act: see Comcare v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd (2010) 198 IR 160 (" Linfox ") at 167 [35] and Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1987 ; (2008) 107 ALD 578 (" Post Logistics ") at 583 [24]. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 1220" id="cs1">Pursuant to s 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) the Court has jurisdiction to make declarations of right "whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed". Clause 2(1) of schedule 2 to the OHS Act states that if there has been a breach of (inter alia) s 21(1) of the Act the court "must make a declaration" to that effect. In Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1987 ; (2008) 178 IR 200 at [21] Flick J followed a reference to this provision with a comment as to the discretionary nature of the power to make declarations conferred by the Federal Court of Australia Act and commented that the power "is not to be limited by the laying down of rules as to the manner of its exercise" and quoted the following observations of Mason CJ, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ in Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10 ; [1992] HCA 10 ; (1992) 175 CLR 564 at 581-2:

 It is now accepted that superior courts have inherent power to grant declaratory relief. It is a discretionary power which "[i]t is neither possible nor desirable to fetter ... by laying down rules as to the manner of its exercise. " However, it is confined by the considerations which mark out the boundaries of judicial power.</sentence>
<sentence from="[2010] FCA 793" id="cs2">The parties have submitted that it is appropriate for the Court to inform itself of the facts necessary for the granting of declaratory relief by reference to the statement of agreed facts, the agreed statement of claim and the consent of the parties to the granting of the declaratory relief (see Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1987 ; (2008) 107 ALD 578 (at [24]). </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 771" id="cs3">The maximum pecuniary penalty that might be imposed in this case is equivalent to $242,000.00. I note that in Comcare v Commonwealth of Australia [2007] FCA 662 a penalty of $198,000.00 was imposed. In Comcare v National Gallery of Australia [2007] FCA 1548 , a pecuniary penalty of $20,000.00 was imposed. In Comcare v Postal Logistics Australasia Pty Limited [2008] FCA 1987 ; (2008) 178 IR 200 a pecuniary penalty of $165,000.00 was imposed. In Comcare v Commonwealth of Australia [2009] FCA 700 , a pecuniary penalty of $210,000.00 was imposed. Save in the National Gallery case, which was a minor matter on any view, the other three pecuniary penalties were imposed where the consequences of contravention were the death of an employee.  However, I also concur with North J, in his emphasis of the overriding caution expressed by Flick J in Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 1987 ; (2008) 178 IR 200 , where His Honour said that care must be taken to ensure that any listing of potentially relevant considerations do not themselves become an impermissible substitute for considering the terms of the legislation in issue or an unnecessary constraint upon a discretion conferred in otherwise unconfined terms. </sentence>
<sentence from="[2009] FCA 700" id="cs4">Subject to the overriding caution expressed by Flick J in Comcare v Post Logistics Australasia Pty Ltd (2008) 178 IR 200 ; [2008] FCA 1987 at [38] in the passage which follows, these statements reflect the proper approach to assessing penalty:
 Care must be taken to ensure that any listing of potentially relevant considerations do not themselves become an impermissible substitute for considering the terms of the legislation in issue or an unnecessary constraint upon a discretion conferred in otherwise unconfined terms.

 The Submissions of Comcare
 </sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">CRIMES ACT 1914 </title>
<title id="l1">CRIMES ACT 1914 - SECT 4AA Penalty units</title>
<title id="l2">COMMONWEALTH AUTHORITIES AND COMPANIES ACT 1997 </title>
<title id="l3">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l4">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 21 Declarations of right</title>
<title id="l5">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1991 </title>
<title id="l6">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1991 - SECT 9A Meaning of contractor etc.</title>
<title id="l7">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1991 - SECT 16 Duties of employers in relation to their employees etc.</title>
<title id="l8">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 1991 - SECT 40 Appointment of investigators</title>
<title id="l9">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l10">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2000 </title>
<title id="l11">OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ACT 2000 - SECT 8 Duties of employers</title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">constitutional law</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">section 109 inconsistency</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">federal industrial instruments regulating long service leave</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">application of construction industry long service leave act 1997 (vic)</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.4">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">whether conflict between workplace relations act 1996 (cth) and state act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.5">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">subject matter of industrial instruments and state act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.6">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">whether industrial instruments cover the field</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.7">cited from="[2009] FCA 327">whether inconsistency between industrial instruments and state act</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.0">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">appeals</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.1">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.2">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the full court should regard itself as bound to apply a formula derived from niemann v. electronic industries ltd [1978] vicrp 44 ; (1978) vr 431</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.3">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">width of the discretion to grant leave to appeal under s. 24(1a) of the federal court of australia act 1976 .  patents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.4">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.5">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether any part of general overhead costs is allowable as a deduction in the determination of the profits made by an infringer</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.6">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">principles relating to the taking of an account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.7">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the case of a side-line is an exceptional case</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.8">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">reference to standard accountancy methods as indicating what must be deducted in order to determine the amount of a profit</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.9">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of a line of cases establishing the approach adopted in the united states to the solution of this problem</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.10">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">onus on wrongdoer who has mixed legitimate activities with activities involving infringement of another's property right to justify the particular apportionment of costs adopted by him in his accounts</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.11">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">declaration of principle that the infringer is generally at liberty to show that various categories of overhead contributed to the obtaining of the relevant profit and to show in what proportion they should be allocated in the taking of the account of profits</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.12">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">discussion of whether the profits for which the defendants must account are (in the case of a patented closure for a canister) the profits for the closures only or for the closures and canisters to which they are fitted</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.13">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the infringer's particular pricing policy can be relied on by him as a contribution by him to the profits unrelated to the patent</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp1.14">cited from="[1991] FCA 655">whether the profits of the whole canister and closure are fairly traceable to the use by the infringer of the invention.</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
<title id="l1">CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LONG SERVICE LEAVE ACT 1997 </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
</citphrases>
<citances>
</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">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 62 Information etc. in relation to certain applications</title>
<title id="l3">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190A Registrar to consider claims</title>
<title id="l4">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190B Registration: conditions about merits of the claim</title>
<title id="l5">NATIVE TITLE ACT 1993 - SECT 190F If the claim cannot be registered--review by Federal Court</title>
<title id="l6">NATIVE TITLE AMENDMENT ACT 2007 </title>
<title id="l7">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>


Question:
<citphrase id="cp0.0">cited from="[2006] FCA 1846">t-shirts identical with those commissioned by the applicant</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.1">cited from="[2006] FCA 1846">no urgent remedial action required</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.2">cited from="[2006] FCA 1846">no evidence that a real possibility exists than any of the respondents might destroy incriminating material before an inter parties application can be made</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp0.3">cited from="[2006] FCA 1846">application dismissed</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.0">citing from="[2008] FCA 1201">practice and procedure</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.1">citing from="[2008] FCA 1201">anton piller order</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.2">citing from="[2008] FCA 1201">grant of leave to applicants to inspect documents</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.3">citing from="[2008] FCA 1201">no discretion to permit inspection to facilitate discovery or provision of particulars</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.4">citing from="[2008] FCA 1201">adverse exercise of discretion</citphrase>
<citphrase id="cp2.5">citing from="[2008] FCA 1201">general discovery</citphrase>
</citphrases>
<citances>
<sentence from="[2008] FCA 1201" id="cs0">26 As occurred in the present proceeding, where there is no longer a basis for believing that documents may be destroyed, O 25B cannot then be invoked as the source of a power to vary orders previously made. Thereafter, if those orders are to be varied, recourse must be had to O 25 r 2 of the Federal Court Rules or s 23 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth): Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd v Kalra (No 2) [2007] FCA 2108.  5 Once the materials and documents had been seized, the order was thereafter first varied, with the consent of those from whom the materials had been seized, on 14 December 2007 ( Metso Minerals (Australia) Ltd v Kalra (No 2) [2007] FCA 2108). By consent, the parties' legal representatives were granted photocopy access to the hard copies of documents seized. Various other orders were thereafter made by consent in February and March 2008, including orders extending the time for reporting by the independent solicitor.</sentence>
</citances>
<legistitles>
<title id="l0">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 </title>
<title id="l1">FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ACT 1976 - SECT 23 Making of orders and issue of writs</title>
<title id="l2">FEDERAL COURT RULES </title>
</legistitles>
</case>